Oral Answers to Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Dentistry

Andrew Robathan: What percentage of the residents of the South Leicestershire primary care trust area is registered with an NHS dentist.

Rosie Winterton: Registration details are not collected on the basis of residency. However, the number of patients registered with dental practices in south Leicestershire is equivalent to 51 per cent. of the local population, a 3.1 per cent. increase since October 2004. Fifteen practices are currently accepting NHS patients.

Andrew Robathan: The other 49 per cent., including my family and myself and my constituents in the Lutterworth area, would like to register with an NHS dentist but, believe me, it is impossible to find one. Can the Minister explain how it was that in September 1999 the Prime Minister said to the Labour party conference:
	"In the next two years everybody will have access to an NHS dentist"?
	Was the Prime Minister mistaken then, or was he not entirely correct when he told the Labour party conference that?

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are reforming the system whereby NHS dentistry is delivered. With regard to the first part of his question, there is a dental access centre in his area. There are 15 practices currently registering NHS patients in his area, so I suggest he contacts the PCT to see whether he can be registered.

David Taylor: The position in south Leicestershire has a knock-on effect on the nearby PCT of Charnwood and North-West Leicestershire, in which my constituency is located. There are therefore shortages there, apart from the western end of the constituency. The soon-to-be amalgamated PCT has done a reasonable job introducing the new contracts. Can the Minister confirm that as recently as 1992, less than 10 per cent. of UK dentist income came from private practice, whereas now it is more than half? When will the new measures start to redress that balance, so that we can get even coverage throughout our county?

Rosie Winterton: As the hon. Gentleman rightly said—[Hon. Members: "Friend!"] the difficulty is not necessarily that there is a shortage—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me say to those on the Opposition Front Bench and others, but mainly those on the Front Bench, that if they want to get to the Government Dispatch Box, they should not shout at a Minister. That is the last way that they will manage to get there.

Rosie Winterton: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The changes that we will bring in next year will address some of the problems related to the fact that NHS dentists have increasingly been undertaking private work. The offer that we are making to dentists is a fair one. Allowing them more time to do preventive work, and other measures, such as increasing the number of dentists in training and bringing in international recruits, will help to ease the current problem. We know that it is by no means solved, but we are taking firm measures to deal with the crisis that we inherited from the Conservatives.

Stewart Jackson: If she will make a statement on her plans to reform NHS dentistry.

Rosie Winterton: From April 2006, commissioning of NHS dentistry will be the responsibility of primary care trusts. A new dental contract will be introduced alongside a much simpler system of patient charges. The reforms will improve access, encourage more preventive dentistry and provide a stable income for dentists.

Stewart Jackson: I have corresponded with the Minister and received a delightful letter back from her. Will she come to my constituency, visit the PCT and acknowledge the crisis in NHS dentistry in Peterborough? In the meantime, will she ask her civil servants to undertake an urgent review of the deregistration of NHS dental patients across the country and the massive impact that that is having, particularly on preventive dentistry?

Rosie Winterton: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's correspondence and the situation in his constituency, where I understand that a dentist has threatened to leave the NHS, which would deregister about 30,000 patients. However, I also know that the PCT has been in discussions with other local dentists and is confident that if that dentist deregisters, it can offer those patients places with NHS dentists. I am aware of the problem, and the PCT is dealing with it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in encouraging the dentist to stay with the NHS and in thanking the PCT, which is working extremely hard to ensure that NHS dentistry is improved in the area and that those 30,000 people are found places, if it is necessary to do so.

Jim Dobbin: My hon. Friend has visited my constituency to meet Mr.   Tariq Drabu, who has a dental practice in Middleton. Since her visit, he has invested some £50,000 of his own money and, with the help of the PCT, increased his NHS patients by 1,000, and he is also about to take on a new partner. Does she think that his commitment to the NHS sets a good example to other dentists and will she consider visiting Middleton in the new year to see the progress made?

Rosie Winterton: I remember visiting my hon. Friend's constituency, where I was particularly impressed by the fact that the dentist to whom he has referred was working under a personal dental services contract. I thank the dentists who have taken that approach, because they have shown how the new contract will work. The system allows more preventive treatment and greater clinical judgment by dentists on how to look after their patients, which benefits not only dentists, but patients, too. That is how we will approach the new contract in April 2006, and my hon. Friend is right that how his PCT has worked locally is an extremely good example of how NHS dentistry can be turned round in a local area.

Paul Rowen: Will the Minister explain how dental registrations in Rochdale have fallen from 58 per cent. in 1997 to 38 per cent. this year? Is that progress?

Rosie Winterton: Of course that is not progress, and it is not good that the number of NHS places has fallen. One reason why the decrease has occurred is that more dentists have turned to private work. We have tried to turn the situation around by working with dentists to introduce a new contract that reflects how they say that they want to work and by introducing a simpler system of patient charges to reduce bureaucracy, about which dentists have complained. We are bringing dentists back into the NHS, using international recruits and training more new dentists, which started in October. I know that the situation is far from perfect, particularly in Rochdale, where I have visited the dental access centre, and we are taking steps to turn the situation around.

John Grogan: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the average dentist currently gets about £80,000 from the NHS plus access to capital grants and that that payment is likely to be maintained under the new system? When dentists deregister, despite the excellent remuneration under the new system, will she encourage PCTs to commission other dental services or directly employ salaried dentists?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right to point out that if a dentist makes a reasonable commitment to the NHS, they can expect to receive about £80,000 in pay plus another £60,000 in business expenses, which is not an unreasonable salary. Because the power and the money will be devolved to the local level, if an NHS dentist decides to leave the NHS despite those generous terms, the PCT will have money available locally to commission dentistry from a dentist who is interested in the NHS.

Paul Beresford: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have a slight interest in the subject, so I might be able to help. The Minister knows that dentists are trained to use new methods, materials and techniques that patients demand and which are, I think correctly, available only outside the NHS. Will she re-examine the contract to see whether it can be tweaked to encourage mixed NHS and private dentistry, which would allow dentists to stay with the NHS, at least in part?

Rosie Winterton: Nothing in the new contract will prevent the continuing mix of NHS and private dentistry. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that new materials are available as well as so-called cosmetic dentistry, which is not allowed on the NHS at the moment. He and I have discussed several of those issues, and I can assure him that nothing in the new contract prevents dentists from undertaking private work if that is what patients demand.

Chris Mole: The mix to which my hon. Friend refers causes confusion for some patients. What are the Government doing to clarify for patients the information about which services are charged for and which are provided on the NHS?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend is right that there has been confusion; I am sure that other hon. Members will have had experience of that. People say to me, "I've just paid £1,500 for NHS dental treatment", and I say, "No, you haven't, because the maximum you could pay was £383." The Office of Fair Trading looked into this very thoroughly and said in its report that there is some confusion. As a result of the changes that we are making, we want dentists to make the prices for private work absolutely clear in their surgeries and to tell patients what they can expect to pay under the NHS. The simplified banding system will also make it clearer to patients what they can expect to pay on the NHS. I accept that there has been a problem, but we are taking steps to put it right.

Andrew Murrison: Is it not the case that the Minister's plans will result in more patients paying more, perverse incentives for dentists to offer cheaper treatments within each of the charging bands, and little help from units of dental activity to encourage preventive work of the sort that my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) mentioned?

Rosie Winterton: No, they will not. We should be absolutely clear about what we are offering dentists under the new contract. If they give a reasonable level of commitment to the NHS, they can expect to take home about £80,000 a year. On top of that, about £60,000 is given in expenses to help run practices. That will be guaranteed for three years to encourage the same level of commitment to NHS dentistry as at present. However, in terms of units of dental activity, there will be a reduction to allow for preventive care. The hon. Gentleman is wrong to say that this militates against NHS dentistry; in fact, it is a very good offer to NHS dentists. I hope that Opposition Members would join me in encouraging dentists to stay with the NHS and not to go private.

Natascha Engel: If she will make a statement on progress towards recruiting extra dentists into the NHS.

Rosie Winterton: Some 1,453 dentists were recruited by the end of October 2005, contributing to a 1,100 net increase in the number of NHS dentists in England between September 2004 and September 2005. This recruitment drive improved access to dentistry in many parts of the country. During the past 12 months, registrations increased by 700,000.

Natascha Engel: As a result of that work, NHS patient registration in north-east Derbyshire has increased by nearly 5,000. What steps will my hon. Friend take if a critical mass of dentists opt out of the NHS contract and choose instead to provide private treatment only?

Rosie Winterton: I am very pleased to hear that there has been an increase in the number of NHS patients in my hon. Friend's area. That is due in no large part to the work of local primary care trusts—

John Bercow: No small part.

Rosie Winterton: Quite right. It is due in no small part to PCTs and local dentists working to rectify the situation.
	As regards what will happen if dentists do choose to leave the NHS, the whole idea of commissioning at local level is that instead of the money reverting to the centre, as it used to, it remains at local level. That means that the PCT can use that money to purchase dentistry from other dentists or to recruit from other areas if necessary.

Julia Goldsworthy: Does the Minister agree that headcount NHS dentist figures do not give a full picture of the extent of shortages? I recently spoke to a dentist who has only three NHS patients—his wife and two children—but still counts as an NHS headcount dentist. Does the Minister agree that, to overcome the problem, the Department must undertake to measure NHS dentists on a full-time equivalent basis?

Rosie Winterton: One of the advantages of the new contract and the new system of commissioning dentistry is that the local PCT will be required to consider local health needs for dentistry and then examine the number of dentists who provide it. If necessary, in the instance that the hon. Lady has highlighted, it would be possible to ask dentists whether they would like to take on more than three patients so that the PCT got the advantage of the money being devolved locally and NHS dentists could expand their practices if others were not willing to offer NHS dentistry.

Joan Walley: Is it not the case that, if the Government are to be truly successful in recruiting more dentists, they will have to increase the number of training places available? Will my hon. Friend look closely at the proposal to build a dental school in Stoke-on-Trent as part of the new provision that is planned for the west midlands?

Rosie Winterton: My hon. Friend knows that we will increase the number of training places by 25 per cent. We set a target this year for 170 extra places and we have made 189 available. As she also knows, we are considering proposals for a new dental school and we will examine them in the new year. Let me remind hon. Members that we are considering a new dental school because the Conservative party closed two when it was in power.

Hospital Closures (Sudbury)

Tim Yeo: What representations she has received about the closure of Walnuttree and St Leonard's hospitals in Sudbury.

Patricia Hewitt: To date, more than 5,000 letters have been received from hon. Members and members of the public on the matter as well as six related parliamentary questions. I also met the hon. Gentleman on 19 July when the issue was discussed.

Tim Yeo: Is it Government policy to close community hospitals and force patients to travel 40 miles to overstretched general hospitals? Is it Government policy for primary care trusts to issue grossly misleading consultation papers, which omit costings of replacement services, and to withdraw existing hospital-based services before even the most rudimentary community alternatives are in place? If none of those is Government policy, why is the Secretary of State allowing the West Suffolk primary care trust to do all three in my constituency now?

Patricia Hewitt: Walnuttree hospital has a building that was constructed in 1836 and has already had £300,000 invested in it to bring it up to the standard required by fire safety regulations, albeit temporarily. West Suffolk PCT is dealing with that and it does not believe that the hospital can offer the quality of care that the modern NHS should provide. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is consulting about alternative proposals that will offer modern intermediate care and ancillary care to his constituents and others in the locality. The consultation has been extended at the request of the local overview and scrutiny committee until 12 December. No final decisions have therefore been made.

Herceptin

Ann Winterton: If she will make a statement on the availability of the breast cancer drug Herceptin to recently diagnosed women.

Jane Kennedy: As the hon. Lady knows, Herceptin is not yet licensed for women with early breast cancer but, as with other unlicensed drugs, it can be used in some cases. It is for clinicians to decide, in discussion with patients, whether Herceptin is appropriate, taking into account potential risks and medical history. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is an assiduous campaigner on behalf of one of her constituents. She may like to know that, following last Friday's decision by the 14 primary care trusts of Greater Manchester to provide funding to support the wider prescribing of Herceptin in their area, the Central Cheshire PCT, which covers her constituency and is in the Greater Manchester and Cheshire cancer network area, is meeting this afternoon to consider the matter.

Ann Winterton: Will the Minister accept that that reply is good news for my constituent, Joanne Leese? Will she also examine postcode prescribing—the postcode lottery? If the Central Cheshire PCT does not go along with the Greater Manchester group, my constituent will be further disadvantaged. It is wrong, when a clinician has said that a person should have Herceptin, that cost should prevent the prescription of that good medication for her condition.

Jane Kennedy: PCTs will need to take a range of factors into consideration when reaching these decisions, including the appropriateness of the treatment for an individual patient, and its cost-effectiveness. The drug will not be appropriate for all women. The important thing is that PCTs do not refuse to fund the drug for early breast cancer on principle, and that they take into account all the considerations relating to each case.

David Crausby: After months of struggle, my constituent, Alyson Cooper, has been allowed to use Herceptin by the Bolton primary care trust. But why should she have had to fight for her treatment? Was it not bad enough to have cancer in the first place, without being forced to campaign for her life? Will my hon. Friend ensure that no other woman is put through such agony?

Jane Kennedy: It is important to remember that, as with other cancer drugs, Herceptin can have side effects. For example, it can cause heart damage in some patients. That is why we need to ensure that it will be safe for routine use. That is the role of the licensing process, and the reason why that process is so important in regard to the considerations that must be taken into account. The House might like to know, however, that the National Cancer Research Institute is producing guidelines on the use of Herceptin for early breast cancer prior to licensing. I am sure that that will be of great help to primary care trusts in considering these decisions.

Iris Robinson: I was delighted that the Northern Ireland Minister with responsibility for health has said that he will make Herceptin available for specific breast cancer sufferers in the Province. However, we have just had the disturbing disclosure that a radiographer in Northern Ireland has been suspended pending inquiries into whether the correct information was given to women after breast screening. Will the Minister tell the House what checks and balances are in place throughout the United Kingdom to prevent the unnecessary experience that 1,300 women in Northern Ireland are now facing in waiting to see whether they have been given the correct diagnosis?

Jane Kennedy: It would clearly be inappropriate for me to comment on the particular case that the hon. Lady has highlighted, but I hope that she will be reassured that the NHS, whether here or in Northern Ireland, always takes great care to ensure that the right results are returned to patients. Occasionally, however, mistakes are made and the steps that she has described need to be taken. This is an extremely important issue, and it is absolutely right that the proper procedures should be in place to ensure that the right diagnosis is communicated.

Doug Naysmith: As my right hon. Friend has already said, some 20 per cent. of women with breast cancer have tumours that are susceptible to treatment with Herceptin, and this can be tested for with the HER2 test. Can she assure me that everything possible is being done to ensure that HER2 testing accompanies diagnosis as closely as possible?

Jane Kennedy: I hope that my hon. Friend will be reassured to hear that Professor Mike Richards has been working very closely with the directors of the cancer networks across England and Wales to ensure that HER2 testing is made available to women who are diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer.

Nadine Dorries: Bedfordshire Heartlands primary care trust will have a £19.5 million deficit by the end of this year. The recovery plan put in place to deal with that is restricting the work of our emergency services. I do not know what kind of battle a constituent of mine would have in attempting to obtain Herceptin. Does the Minister agree that, if we cancelled the much-failed choose and book system, which cost £6.2 billion and which general practitioners are failing to use, we could use the money to provide Herceptin to everyone who needs it?

Jane Kennedy: No, I do not. The cost of Herceptin will need to be met from the existing settlement agreed for the national health service. We understand that some trusts are already under financial pressures and might have to make difficult decisions to achieve that. However, we have greatly increased the amount of money going into the health service, and those trusts with deficits now have financial recovery plans in place. It is far better to be working in an environment in which NHS resources have more than doubled in three years than to be working in the environment that the Conservative party would have created.

Sharon Hodgson: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the Northern cancer network, which has agreed to allow the drug to be prescribed for HER2-positive women in the north and north-east? As that movement is growing throughout the country, is it not about time that the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence approved use of the drug throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend put pressure on NICE to speed up that process?

Jane Kennedy: Of course I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the North-East cancer network. The directors of the cancer networks have played a key role in ensuring that the right decisions are made, and that Herceptin is prescribed only for patients for whom it is appropriate. As I have said, the drug is believed to have serious side effects, and it is too early to judge its full effectiveness, its overall cost-effectiveness and all the risks involved. That is why licensing remains so important, along with the NICE appraisal that will be carried out.
	I have announced, with NICE, the new procedure that NICE is introducing. Herceptin and four other potentially life-saving drugs will be subjected to a single appraisal, which we hope will be completed within a few weeks of the announcement of the licence. The whole process will become much swifter. Let me record my appreciation of the institute's efforts to bring about a change that will benefit many patients enormously.

Steve Webb: Does the Secretary of State have the power to guarantee Herceptin to women whose clinicians believe that it is appropriate for them now? If she has that power, why has she not used it? If she does not have that power, is there not a danger—I put this gently—that false hopes will be raised among women who are in a desperate situation? They will hear an announcement that suggests that Herceptin will be available, on which the Secretary of State will then be unable to deliver.

Jane Kennedy: No. We rightly decided to give primary care trusts—the local organisations that understand local circumstances best—authority to make the necessary decision when a drug that has not been licensed is being offered to a patient, or when treatment with the drug is being discussed with a patient. We have said, however, that the decision making should not constitute a blanket policy of not prescribing, but should take place on a case-by-case basis. Decisions involving an important drug such as Herceptin must take all the circumstances into account; they must not be made simply on the basis of cost.

John Baron: The Minister will be well aware that because of deficits, many primary care trusts are struggling to implement NICE guidance and fund the provision of Herceptin for late-stage breast cancer. Given that experts such as those working for Breakthrough Breast Cancer believe that 1,000 lives a year could be saved if Herceptin were available for early-stage breast cancer, and given the Government's recent announcement that Herceptin should not be withheld for reasons of cost alone, what additional funding will the Government provide so that PCTs can implement that direction? They need to ensure that other local services do not suffer, and also that the shameful postcode lottery that exists in relation to Herceptin and late-stage breast cancer is not replicated in the case of early-stage breast cancer.

Jane Kennedy: I do not accept that there is a serious problem with late-stage breast cancer. I will look into the matter and respond to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not recognise the circumstances that he has described.
	It is important to acknowledge the huge amount of extra resources that the health service has received. It is perfectly possible for PCTs and hospitals to manage their resources properly, and the vast majority are doing so. Professor Mike Richards wrote to the NHS in mid October, advising it that it would need to make arrangements to provide Herceptin for women for whom it was appropriate. It is appropriate that the NHS organises its budgets locally, gets its priorities in place and then makes payments where appropriate for particular patients.

Cerebral Palsy

Sally Keeble: What services are provided for children with cerebral palsy.

Liam Byrne: Children with cerebral palsy can access the same range of NHS services as all other children. We recognise, of course, that children with cerebral palsy are likely to need access to those services more often.

Sally Keeble: I thank the Minister for that answer, but may I bring to his attention the case of the Cox family and their son, Aidan, who has cerebral palsy, and the outstanding work that they have done to raise funds for his care? What I and my constituents want to know is why there is such a gap in the provision of services for such children. Why will the NHS not take notice of parental preferences for care—in this case, for Aidan—and why will it not fund more proactive care, which this couple want for their son, to give him a real chance in life?

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for discussing the case with me personally in the last two or three days. Children with cerebral palsy are, of course, first and foremost children, so it is for local clinicians together with the parents to take decisions about the right course of treatment. Quite complex packages will often be required and it is important for parents to make their own preferences clear to the clinicians in that process. PCTs are then free to fund whatever treatment they think is appropriate, provided that they do so on the basis of available evidence and are convinced of the effectiveness of the treatment proposed.

Mark Pritchard: Is the Minister aware of the financial crisis in the Shropshire health economy—currently standing at a £35 million deficit—that will have a direct impact on children's services in my constituency and particularly at the Princess Royal hospital? Will the Minister give an undertaking today to allow an urgent cash injection to pay off that deficit—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is going far too wide.

Primary Care Trust Reconfiguration

Charlotte Atkins: If she will make a statement on the role of the external panel in respect of the reconfiguration of primary care trusts.

Patricia Hewitt: The independent external panel is advising me on proposals made by strategic health authorities for restructuring both those authorities and some primary care trusts. Where proposals meet the criteria that we set out at the end of July, they will go out to a full statutory three-month consultation. No decisions will be made on the reconfiguration of PCTs until the end of that consultation.

Charlotte Atkins: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Having met the leaders of my strategic health authority last week, it is clear that they intend to force through their unacceptable proposals for a massive Staffordshire-wide PCT and also a merged west midlands ambulance service. Will the expert external panel ensure that suitable and acceptable alternatives are put out to consultation so that my constituents can have their say on other alternatives to those proposed by the SHA?

Patricia Hewitt: In response, let me stress that it is not up to the strategic health authority to force through any specific option. My hon. Friend has been assiduous in bringing this particular problem to my attention and we will shortly be writing to each strategic health authority in response to proposals and my noble Friend Lord Warner, the Minister with responsibility for delivery in the NHS, will be writing to all hon. Members to let them know our response to those SHA proposals in their particular area.

Richard Taylor: With the proposed reduction in primary care trusts and strategic health authorities, many senior executives will face redundancy. Who will then be accountable for the specific changes that they will have instituted?

Patricia Hewitt: Where an existing PCT has come forward with proposals for a new community hospital or improved services, for example, those proposals will be taken over, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, by the successor PCT where there is a change in reconfiguration. The board of the new PCT will remain accountable for those proposals, for the sound management of the PCT budget and for the delivery of the best possible NHS services to its community.

Brian Jenkins: Will my right hon. Friend issue instructions to the external panel on this issue? Many of us support having a review to save management and associated costs, so that the money can be passed to the front line. But given that the average number of patients in a west midlands PCT is 230,000, we regard with great difficulty the proposed figure of 730,000 patients for a shire county area. Such a PCT will not be local, and because we will need area managers, the funding savings that we are looking for will not be made.

Patricia Hewitt: I understand very well my hon. Friend's concern, and as we stressed at the end of July in "Commissioning a patient-led NHS", the issue here is to balance the need to retain a real understanding of the different needs of different local communities, while ensuring that PCTs have the strength and expertise to challenge, and to hold to account, acute hospitals. Those are exactly the kind of issues that the external panel is taking into account, but let me stress that it is an advisory panel, not a decision-making one. Ministers will decide which of the proposals brought to us by the strategic health authorities go out for consultation.

Damian Green: I am delighted to hear that Ministers will take the final decision on such matters. When the Secretary of State takes that decision on the proposed Kent reconfiguration, will she note that the current proposals put the Ashford primary care trust into a west Kent configuration; and will she have a map with her, so that she can see that Ashford is actually in east Kent? The clue can be found in her own Department. The largest hospital in the East Kent Hospitals NHS Trust is in Ashford, so if she insists on proceeding with this unnecessary and disruptive reconfiguration, can she at least ensure that the Kent reconfiguration puts the right PCTs in the right part of the county?

Patricia Hewitt: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful geography lesson. I will certainly bear it in mind when we consider the proposals in respect of the Kent authority.

Health Inequalities

Greg Mulholland: What   recent research she has evaluated on health inequalities.

Caroline Flint: The Department has recently released a number of research programmes on health inequalities, including "Tackling Health Inequalities: Status Report on the Programme for Action"; two reports commissioned for the UK presidency of the EU; and a further report, commissioned from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, on behavioural change, which is linked to the health trainer programmes currently covering disadvantaged communities. Moreover, a public health research and development consortium will address health inequalities as a key theme. All this research continues to inform how best to strengthen our ability to deliver on health inequalities.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for her response. Does she realise that according to the "Tackling Health Inequalities" report, the relative life-expectancy gap between the average local authority in England and the fifth of local authorities with the lowest life expectancy has actually widened for both males and females? For males, the gap has widened by nearly 2 per cent.; even more worryingly, for females it has widened by 5 per cent. Will she acknowledge that this shows a worrying trend of increasing health inequality, and does she agree that any further market-based reforms would make the situation worse, not better?

Caroline Flint: The short answer is no. This Government should be credited for identifying the existence of health inequalities in the first place, and we have set into play a number of activities, resourced and supported from the centre, to tackle them. The hon. Gentleman is right: the status report produced over the summer—we commissioned it so that we could actively monitor the situation—did show that the relative gap for life expectancy, and for infant mortality, had increased. However, it also demonstrated that infant mortality rates had fallen in routine and manual groups and in the total population. It further showed that life expectancy had increased for men and women in England, and in the PCTs with the worst health and deprivation indicators. We have also reduced the gap in cancer and circulatory disease mortality, and we are reducing child poverty and improving housing quality. We are moving in the right direction.

Kevin Barron: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most effective ways to reduce health inequalities is to have a comprehensive ban on smoking in all enclosed public places?

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that our proposals will cover 99 per cent. of employees and that the prevalence of smoking among adults is lower in England than anywhere else in the UK. That is due in no small part to the measures that we have taken to tackle the diseases linked to smoking and to provide free NHS smoking-cessation services, especially in our most deprived communities.

Owen Paterson: Would the Minister like to come to Whitchurch, where there is consternation today after the publication of a pre-consultation study suggesting the closure of the local hospital as a way to reduce health costs in Shropshire? The county's acute trusts face a deficit of £34 million, but how will health inequalities be improved by closing primary care facilities, which are cheap, and pushing patients into expensive district general hospitals?

Caroline Flint: If we are serious about addressing disease prevention and public health, we must engage in a debate that moves spending into communities, so that we can—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say to you, Mr. Stuart, that you shout a remark across the Floor of the House every time that a Minister speaks? I know that you are a new Member, but the worst thing that you can do is defy the Chair. You are beginning to go down that road.

Caroline Flint: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	One of the best things that we can do for the future of health services is to ensure that we devote as much attention to prevention and public health as we do to treatment. The health service is there to promote health as well as to provide treatment and our consultation exercise, "Your Health, Your Care, Your Say" is helping in that respect. Hospitals are part of the process, as are the services available in the community—and especially in our most deprived communities.

Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that allowing smoking in pubs that do not serve food and stopping it in pubs that do will increase health inequalities in places such as Liverpool?

Caroline Flint: The issues involved in smoking and health inequalities are complex. My hon. Friend will recognise the work done by the Department to tackle smoking in the home, where 95 per cent. of deaths caused by smoking occur. For example, we have aimed campaigns at parents dealing with matters such as smoking in front of children and other family members. Our proposals on restricting smoking are in tune with public opinion. Even in the drink-only establishments, they will provide protection from smoke for bar staff and other non-smokers. As I said, they are part and parcel of a comprehensive package designed to help people to give up smoking and to provide more choice for people who want to work and socialise in a smoke-free atmosphere.

Avian Influenza

James Duddridge: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on public health procedures in the event of a suspected outbreak of avian influenza.

Patricia Hewitt: The Department of Health is working closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to ensure consistent planning, briefings and preparations for a possible outbreak of avian influenza. That work is based on advice from the two Departments' joint expert advisory committees on the risks to human health and transmissibility of avian influenza from birds to people.

James Duddridge: What steps are being taken to avoid a repeat of what happened when a worker at an Essex quarantine centre, who also worked at Southend hospital, was not vaccinated for three days after DEFRA discovered that there was a problem?

Patricia Hewitt: There is, of course, no vaccine against avian flu at the moment, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is referring to, although we have issued a tender for vaccines against the current strain of bird flu. However, I am assured that all necessary investigations in respect of the quarantine premises in Essex have been undertaken by the Health Protection Agency and the state veterinary service. I emphasise, to the hon. Gentleman and to the whole House, that there is no bird flu in the UK at the moment. We retain our status as a bird flu-free zone.

Ian Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that companies can buy vaccine shots for their employees? In the present situation, might not an increase in that activity deflect attention away from where the vaccine should go?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend may be referring to antivirals and the availability of Tamiflu. We have ordered and are stockpiling very substantial quantities of the drug, and certain companies are also seeking to obtain Tamiflu for their staff. The Department has just placed a tender for a significant quantity of vaccine against the H5NI virus in case that might prove useful in the event of a bird flu outbreak in Britain.

Andrew Lansley: The Secretary of State will recall that on 17 October she told the House and, in particular, the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), that orders were being placed for a strategic stockpile of face masks and gloves, which she will know would be an important aspect of the overall public health measures to combat avian flu outbreaks. Has that order been placed?

Patricia Hewitt: I have checked again with the chief medical officer on the issue of masks and other protective clothing, which are of course routinely available and kept in stock for NHS staff and those supporting them. We are now working with the Health Protection Agency to discuss whether further stocks should be made available to the public and not only to NHS staff.

Andrew Lansley: So the answer to the first question was no.
	The Secretary of State will recall that only 12 days ago the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) wrote, in reply to my written question, that in the event
	"of an outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza . . . poultry workers . . . vets, contractors and other people engaged in disease control activities, will be offered seasonal influenza vaccine . . . within 24 to 48 hours of disease confirmation."—[Official Report, 10 November 2005; Vol. 439, c. 666W.]
	Given what we now know about the availability of seasonal influenza vaccine, what assurance can the Secretary of State give that the vaccine will be available should avian flu occur in this country in the coming months?

Patricia Hewitt: As we do every year, the Department of Health obtained its own stockpile of winter flu vaccine for this year, and we are reserving a significant number of doses to use for poultry workers should there be an outbreak of bird flu.

Age-related Macular Degeneration

Tobias Ellwood: If she will make a statement on the implementation of National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance relating to photodynamic therapy for wet age-related macular degeneration.

Jane Kennedy: The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence issued its guidance on photodynamic therapy on 24 September 2003. Implementation of the guidance was co-ordinated by local specialist commissioning groups and all primary care trusts are funding photodynamic therapy treatment for patients with both the wholly classic and predominantly classic forms of age-related macular degeneration.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful for that reply, but according to the Audit Commission, thousands of people have gone blind from AMD while waiting for Government action. Does the Minister agree that quick referral times are essential if photodynamic therapy is to work? Will she find out why a quarter of trusts have yet to implement the policies that she mentioned? At the moment, this issue is another example of the postcode lottery.

Jane Kennedy: I do not agree with that analysis. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, the Dorset and Somerset strategic health authority has advised me that the photodynamic therapy services for wet age-related macular degeneration are fully compliant with NICE guidelines. I understand that the trust has a dedicated commission arrangement in place to run PDT services for all patients from Dorset. Therefore, his constituents, like other patients throughout the country, are receiving treatment in line with the NICE guidelines.

Michael Connarty: I congratulate Ministers on the extra money that will be put into the work of optometrists, who will get extra money to check for problems such as AMD in the elderly. Even in my constituency, outwith England, one optometrist offers X-rays to his patients. However, will that money be paid year on year? In conversations with optometrists, they say that it is great to have the money, but they are worried that it will stop at the end of the year and they will have raised people's expectations of services that will not continue.

Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. He will know that resources in the NHS are increasing year on year, up to 2008, and it is expected that planning for such services will form an important part of delivering services of that nature. Photodynamic therapy was implemented as quickly as possible across the NHS, and we had to ensure that we had the staff and equipment to deliver the service effectively and safely.

Simon Burns: To pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood), does the Minister realise, and share our concern, that some patients will go blind in the time that it takes for them to be referred to a specialist? Will she assure the House that she will urgently ensure that the NICE guidance is fully implemented?

Jane Kennedy: The NICE technology appraisal was published in September 2003, as I said. The guidance recommended photodynamic therapy only for a particular small sub-group of patients and that a second, much larger sub-group of patients should be treated only as part of a clinical study, which is now being set up. The Department of Health organised that study with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and Novartis, the pharmaceutical company that manufactures the drug used in the treatment. It was entirely proper that the correct services and support were in place before implementing the guidance. The treatment will have a significant impact and bring enormous benefits to patients. Obviously, we share concern if patients are perceived not to get treatments that they believe are ready for them, but it was important to make sure that we took the right steps to have the services in place to deliver the treatment properly to all the patients who need it.

Health Bill

Andrew MacKinlay: What representations she has received in support of the provisions of the Health Bill; and if she will make a statement.

Caroline Flint: The Health Bill contains a diverse range of provisions on which we have consulted widely and received many representations. Copies of the analyses of responses to the smoke-free and health care associated infection consultations will be published before Second Reading.

Andrew MacKinlay: I welcome that reply but, before Second Reading, will the Minister also publish the findings of the Government's Better Regulation Task Force, which has come out against the Airdrie and Shotts fudge? If the Minister read the political tea leaves, she would understand that there is a majority in the House of Commons for a total ban, comparable with the one that will be introduced by the Labour party in Scotland and by the Labour Government at Westminster in Northern Ireland. We need a free vote to test whether there is a majority in the House of Commons, and I hope that Ministers will reflect on what is prudent, just and protects and promotes the best interests of poor working-class people who suffer—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are running out of time.

Caroline Flint: We have taken on board a range of views and representations and will publish the regulatory impact assessment in the usual way. The manifesto commitment was discussed through our national policy forums and the wording in the manifesto was agreed at the Warwick national policy forum, so it has gone through our party machinery in the usual way. Although I accept the views of many Members and organisations outside this place who would like a total ban, in terms of public support and the surveys we have carried out, the Office for National Statistics survey in 2004 found that 88 per cent. of people, when asked, supported restrictions in public places but only 31 per cent. supported complete bans. In California, New York and Norway—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The rest can be written. The Minister can write a letter to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay).

Paul Burstow: Given that second-hand smoke is a significant cause of increased risk of cancer and heart disease, how can any employer fulfil their obligations under health and safety legislation without implementing a full ban in their premises?

Caroline Flint: I am pleased to say that, through our proposals, 99 per cent. of employees will be fully protected, and will work in a smoke-free environment, up from 51 per cent. at present. For the remaining workers, we are looking to ensure that there is protection in bar areas, too. We want to minimise the damage from second-hand smoke, which is not just about bans but about the support we give in the NHS for people who are giving up smoking. I am not sure whether that would have been achieved through the hon. Gentleman's "Orange Book" social insurance policy.

Solvent Abuse

Ben Chapman: What progress has been made in combating solvent abuse.

Caroline Flint: Recently, I met our stakeholder group to look at issues relating to solvent abuse. Much progress has been made and we shall try to ensure that in our Department and other Departments, especially in our strategies for working with young people, solvent abuse is high on the agenda.

Ben Chapman: My hon. Friend will be aware of the work of St. George's university of London, which found that deaths due to solvent abuse had declined by 9 per cent., but does she agree that, if they are to be reduced further, education is a vital part of the process? Will she commend the work of the charity Re-Solv in schools, and in particular the work done by pupils of Wirral grammar school for girls, who are raising awareness among their peers of the dangers of solvent abuse?

Caroline Flint: I understand that my hon. Friend recently visited the Wirral grammar school for girls, where some excellent work is being done. In addition, as part of a package, by providing the young people's substance misuse partnership grant, which was agreed between the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills, we are helping to tackle the abuse of solvents, and of other substances that, I am afraid, children do abuse, including alcohol, tobacco and illegal drugs. I strongly support the work of organisations such as Re-Solv and Solve It, whose chief executive I was pleased to meet at a recent event in my constituency, aimed at encouraging responsible retailing with regard to this product and many others.

Seasonal Influenza Vaccine Supplies

Patricia Hewitt: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about seasonal flu vaccine.
	Five years ago, we decided to give higher priority to protecting the health of the public from winter flu. We introduced the annual seasonal flu vaccination programme and we targeted those at increased risk from seasonal flu—people aged 65 and over, and younger people in certain clinical risk groups as identified by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. This is an annual programme, because each year new strains of flu can emerge and therefore the flu vaccines need to be reformulated accordingly. In this way, each year's vaccine provides the best protection against the influenza virus currently circulating.
	Since the programme was introduced in the winter of 2000–01, vaccination uptake in people aged 65 and over has increased year on year. In the first year of the targeted programme, just over 65 per cent. of elderly patients were vaccinated. Last year 71.5 per cent. of those aged 65 and over received the seasonal flu vaccine—some 5.2 million people—and in addition 1.2 million younger people in the clinical risk groups were vaccinated.
	The responsibility for ordering seasonal flu vaccine and administering the vaccine has always fallen on general practitioners. GPs order their own supply of vaccine, based on the number of eligible patients on the register, and make contractual arrangements with any of the six manufacturers who supply flu vaccine to the UK. In addition to the GP orders, the Department of Health purchases a stock of flu vaccine each year as part of our contingency planning measures. We hold that for emergency use, in case GPs run into difficulties with vaccine supply.
	We routinely meet representatives from the UK vaccine industry group at the beginning of each year to inform the industry of how much seasonal flu vaccine will be required in the UK. This is based on the numbers of people covered by the current Department of Health policy. This year, the estimated production total from all UK vaccine manufacturers was over 14 million doses—more than ever before, and sufficient to immunise 100 per cent. of those in the targeted groups, in other words the elderly and younger people in clinical risk groups, as set out in the letter from the chief medical officer to the NHS in July.
	In late October, however, we began to hear anecdotal evidence that some GPs were facing a shortage of flu vaccine. In order to assess the potential problem, officials wrote on 3 November to the flu immunisation co-ordinators of all the primary care trusts. That letter reminded them of the priority groups for flu vaccination and how additional stocks of vaccine could be ordered from the Department of Health contingency stock, should extra supplies be required by practices in their area.
	The current problems may be due to a combination of factors, such as possibly the under-ordering of vaccine on the one hand, and possibly vaccination of the worried well on the other. It also seems likely that awareness of the need for flu vaccinations is higher this year, due in part to the very high level of media interest in the threat of avian flu in birds and of pandemic flu.
	We do not, of course, expect seasonal flu vaccine to protect people against bird flu or pandemic flu, but I stress that seasonal flu vaccine is important for people aged 65 and over and for the clinical risk groups and that high uptake in those groups is to be welcomed. We need to ensure that GPs prioritise their remaining stocks of flu vaccine to help those who will really benefit most—in other words, people aged 65 and over and younger people in the clinical risk groups. Officials wrote to influenza immunisation co-ordinators to that effect yesterday.
	The Department is also helping GPs by releasing flu vaccine from the contingency stock that we have purchased. We have taken orders against that stock, and deliveries are already being made and will continue into December. There is, of course, exceptionally high demand globally for flu vaccine, despite which the Department has been able to secure an additional 200,000 doses of flu vaccine on top of the 400,000 dose contingency reserve that we have already obtained. The additional 200,000 doses will be delivered in January. We are also discussing with manufacturers whether additional supplies can be made available, over and above those additional 200,000 doses, and if so, when those stocks would be available.
	In previous years, the GP-led arrangement that I have described has, on the whole, worked well. In view of what has happened this year, however, I am reviewing the arrangements currently in place for the seasonal flu vaccination programme and will consider this matter urgently.

Andrew Lansley: I am sure that the House is grateful to the Secretary of State for her statement, although she must understand that we would have been more grateful if she had come to the House yesterday to make a statement on the same day as selected members of the press were being briefed on this subject. I am grateful to her not only for providing me with advance sight of her statement, but—indeed at 1.50 this afternoon—for replying by fax to the letter that I sent to her on 5 October raising concerns about the winter flu vaccination programme.
	I am sure that the House will have listened to the Secretary of State's statement and found in it no acknowledgement of a simple fact: people have been going to their GP surgery to get their flu jabs and been told that supplies have run out.

Dennis Skinner: Not everybody.

Andrew Lansley: Happily, not everybody, but one person missed in the at-risk group is one person too many. The hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House should know that, even where that has not yet happened, it will happen because supplies are running out, and we have not completed the period during which the highest levels of immunisation occur.
	The Secretary of State did not accept responsibility. She should have done so, but she did not. The delivery of the influenza immunisation programme is the Government's responsibility. It is not good enough that she has come to the House to blame general practitioners for the failure of the programme. Not only has she failed to apologise, she has not even remotely begun to explain what has gone wrong. If the House will forgive me, let us start with the actual figures.
	First, the Secretary of State underestimated the success of the flu immunisation programme. Her own Department's figures suggest that, in 2004–05, a 71.5 per cent. vaccine uptake among the over-65 population in England amounted to 5.9 million people immunised—not the 5.2 million that she set out. However, she did not refer to the overall figures on vaccine uptake. Uptake was 71.5 per cent. in England, 68.1 per cent. in Scotland and 62 per cent. in Wales. For risk groups below 65 years old, the comparable figures were 42.6 per cent. in England, 39.3 per cent. in Scotland and just 25 per cent. in Wales.
	The Secretary of State did not make comparisons clearly between what has happened in previous years and what is happening this year. On 26 October last year, her noble Friend Lord Warner told another place:
	"The Government made sure that there were around 14 million doses of flu vaccine available for this year"—
	he was speaking of last winter, not this—
	"despite the problems in the Speke factory, which are well known—compared with 12 million administered last year."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 October 2004; Vol. 665, c. 1174.]
	That implies that the number of doses that the Department of Health has made available this year—14 million—is the same as the number for the previous year.
	The letter that the Department of Health sent to general practitioners yesterday referred on the one hand to 11 million people in the at-risk groups and on the other to the 14 million doses of seasonal flu vaccine that were available. Unfortunately, the 11 million people refers to England, but the 14 million doses refers to the United Kingdom. It would have been more accurate to talk of about 14 million people in the at-risk groups and 14 million doses of influenza vaccine.
	The Secretary of State did not point out in her statement that, although the Department of Health met manufacturers early this year to agree that 13.4 million doses of vaccine would be available—it subsequently procured a contingency supply of 400,000, which I accept is routinely the same each year—it agreed at a later stage that the at-risk groups would include people with chronic liver disease, who had not previously been included. It also agreed that the recommended groups would include main carers with responsibility for the care of elderly and disabled people who would be at risk if their carers were to become ill. The Department has no figures on the likely number of such people, but it means that perhaps millions of carers might have gone to their GP surgeries this winter to try to get flu jabs and then received them appropriately, although that would not have been the case in previous years.
	Those are the figures—the Secretary of State might have had the courtesy to tell us what they were—and the facts about the extension of recommended groups this year compared with previous years. The House will understand that, broadly speaking, the available vaccine supply did not increase, whereas the number of recommended groups did. The prospect of a great deal of speculation about avian flu in the autumn certainly should have led the Department to be aware at an earlier stage about the desirability of being prepared for a much greater take-up of flu vaccine among people in the recommended groups than in previous years.
	Let me ask the Secretary of State several questions about what was done. When carers were added to the recommended groups for vaccination, was the number of doses of vaccine that was intended to be supplied increased from 13.4 million? When the British Medical Association told the Department of Health in October—this was not just anecdotal, as the Secretary of State said—that it had concerns about the availability of vaccine, what did the Department do?
	The Secretary of State will recall that the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) made it clear on 17 October that he, for one, had gone to his surgery and been told not only that he could not have his flu jab on the day of his visit, but that he would not receive it until the end of November, at the earliest. What did she do after 17 October, given that we have now arrived at 22 November and we have a crisis? When a manufacturing company ran out of supply in late October and told the Department about that, what did the Department do?
	When did the Department find out the new figures on uptake? Responses to parliamentary questions said that the uptake figures were due in the Department on 14 November. The Department talked to the UK vaccine industry group on 16 November—six days ago—and asked for additional supplies. Health Ministers did not have the courtesy to tell the House about the lack of availability of supply, even though they had talked to the industry about it. However, they must have talked to the industry because they knew the uptake figures on 14 November. What are the figures and how do they compare with those for previous years?
	What is the Government's evidence that general practitioners have been vaccinating what the Secretary of State cares to call the worried well—people outside the recommended groups? The BMA certainly has no evidence that that is the case and the Scottish Executive do not tell the public and the BMA that it is the problem in Scotland. The Secretary of State might care to explain why general practitioners should vaccinate people who are not in the recommended groups, as they have no financial incentive from the NHS to do that—they are not paid by the NHS to do it—and would be out of pocket from buying the vaccine were they to do so.
	The Secretary of State has not told the House the figures. She has not explained to the House when the Government knew about the implications of changes this year in the uptake of vaccine and in the number of groups recommended. The consequence of all those changes has been our constituents visiting GP surgeries seeking flu vaccinations and being unable to get them. What estimate does she have of the number of people who will at the end of this immunisation season be un-immunised? What justification does she have for coming to the House and instead of taking what is in truth her responsibility for the flu immunisation programme seeking to blame general practitioners?

Patricia Hewitt: I very much regret that the hon. Gentleman has chosen not to give any credit at all for the great success over many years of the targeted winter flu programme. Nor has he chosen to acknowledge the fact that in 1996–97, for which I happen to have the figures, vaccine production for the United Kingdom was a mere 6.1 million doses. For last winter, the figure was double that—12.3 million doses—and for the current year and the current winter season it will be nearly 14 million.
	As I said to the House, the number of people in the risk groups—I mean by that the over-65s and younger people who are clinically at risk—is some 11 million. Therefore, it was the conclusion of the Department of Health that the availability of 14 million or so doses this year would be sufficient not only for 100 per cent. immunisation of the at-risk groups but for immunisation of carers, whom it has always been open to GPs to immunise.
	When we discussed this issue at a recent Health questions, one of my hon. Friends said that he had been unable to get his vaccination. I went back to the Department to check and found that, as I had believed to be the case, there had been delay in production from one of the companies on which we rely for the vaccines. That problem in production was corrected some weeks ago, so the vaccine that should have been produced by that company has now been produced and, as I understand it, delivered.
	The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the uptake figures. The figures that I have, which have been made available to primary care trusts from a large number of GP practices, show that at the end of October—these are the latest figures that I have—the uptake of the flu vaccine was very similar indeed to that for last year. If one looks, for instance, at the figures for the over-65s, one sees that, by the end of October this year, 48.9 per cent. had been vaccinated. By the end of October last year, the figure for elderly people was in fact 55 per cent. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked for the figures; perhaps he would like to listen.
	This year, for younger people in the clinical risk groups, 25 per cent. had been immunised. By the end of October last year, the figure was 28 per cent. That is why the director of immunisation for the Department says that there is no evidence to support the proposition that a much higher proportion of people in the at-risk groups have been asking for immunisation. I have spoken to the chairman of the BMA to ask whether it has any evidence of a sudden upsurge in the past few weeks in requests for immunisation. He said that he did not, in fact, believe that there had been but he is to some extent relying on anecdotal reports, as do we in relation to reports from GPs of increased demand by people whom I did indeed describe as the worried well who do not fall into the at-risk groups for whom we recommend immunisation but who none the less may wish to try to obtain the vaccine.
	The most important issue at this point is ensuring that we provide supplies of vaccine to GPs who, for whatever reason, do not have enough. That is the problem. As in every previous year, GPs have placed their orders. The total number of doses available to the country is about 1 million higher than in the previous year which, in turn, was about 1 million higher than the year before and so on. A number of GPs, however, have run out of vaccine, which is why we are doing everything possible in the Department to fulfil our responsibilities and ensure that the supplies that we already have are delivered to GPs who have run out as quickly as possible and that we secure fresh supplies as quickly as possible and in turn make those available to GPs who need them so that everybody, particularly in the at-risk groups, who wants a flu vaccination this winter can have one as soon as possible.

Steve Webb: I am grateful for sight of the Secretary of State's statement.
	Does the Secretary of State accept that central Government have only two things to do? They must ensure that the emergency stockpile is adequate and they must monitor what is happening on the ground. Does she accept that the Government have failed on both fronts? We are told that the emergency stockpile will expire in a few days and, from what she has said, the Department does not appear to have a clue about what is going on. In her statement, she said that problems "may be due" to certain factors and used the words "possibly vaccination" and "awareness may be". Frankly, the Government do not know. Will the Secretary of State admit that she cannot say what has happened to all those vaccines? Does she know where they are and who has had them?
	Has not the Department of Health been grossly complacent about the issue? I and Conservative Front Benchers wrote to the Secretary of State in the first half of October, but she told us today that the Government had to rely on anecdotal evidence in late October and more recently. Why did she not take action when hon. Members contacted her to alert her to the issue? Is the Department not guilty of gross complacency? How many pensioners have gone to GP surgeries and been turned away? Does she have any idea how many we are talking about? Given that many people face a barrier when going to have a vaccination—it is an ordeal even to think about it—how many will never come back because they have been turned away and simply do not want to face it again?
	The Government need to take responsibility instead of blaming GPs for prescribing to the wrong people, because there does not appear to be any evidence that GPs have done so. Did the Secretary of State ask the BMA if its members had been prescribing to the worried well and, if so, what did it say? I do not imagine that it said that its members had been doing so. If this is how the Government cope with predictable seasonal flu, which they know about every year and for which they have plenty of time to plan, can we have any confidence that they will cope with a much bigger flu pandemic if we have one?

Patricia Hewitt: When the hon. Gentleman accuses my Department of complacency and a lack of preparedness he is simply talking rubbish. At the beginning of the year, my Department did what it has done every year since we embarked on this programme—talk to the industry about the amount of flu dosage that would be available and ensure that it would be more this year than it was last year. As I said, there has been an increase every year for the past eight years in the amount of vaccine for winter flu available in our country. When we began to receive information and calls from GPs who were running low on supplies, we immediately took steps to set up a national audit, from which I have cited figures to show the position for the at-risk groups by the end of October. We also contacted the industry to secure more supplies. We were accused by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) of not contacting the industry until the middle of November. In fact, that was the second time that we went to the industry to secure more stock for departmental supplies because of the problems that GPs had encountered.
	The fact remains that for the winter flu vaccine programme—this is a different arrangement from the one that is in place for childhood immunisation—general practitioners have always been responsible for ordering and administering the flu vaccine. Given the overall amounts—some 14 million doses—that have been delivered in our country, we can be clear that GPs have ordered at least the same amounts, if not somewhat more, compared with last year.
	As regards possible pandemic flu, the arrangements that we are already making for obtaining antivirals and for obtaining vaccines are based on the system that we use for childhood vaccination—in other words, a central ordering system. The only central ordering system that we have for the winter flu vaccine is the relatively small but now increasing stockpile that we use to supplement the far larger amount that GPs order, based on their own patient lists and knowledge of the number of patients who fall within the at-risk groups. As I stressed, it is important now to ensure that we continue to do as we are doing, to obtain as much additional stock as we can and supply that to the GPs as quickly as possible.

David Heyes: In my constituency, in at least one health centre, those in priority groups—the over-65s—have been told not only that supplies are exhausted, but that it is too late in the season for new supplies to be obtained. Is it the case that a seasonal cut-off date has until now been applied to the supply of vaccine?

Patricia Hewitt: No, it is not the case that there is now a cut-off date and that my hon. Friend's elderly constituents are too late for the flu vaccine. As I said, we are distributing a significant number of doses—indeed, we have orders for some 200,000 doses that we are starting to distribute. We are taking further orders, which we will fill as more vaccine becomes available. As I mentioned, we have already placed an additional order for a further 200,000 doses—that is, on top of our initial order of 400,000 doses—so an additional 200,000 doses of flu vaccine will become available in January, and will continue to be made available to GPs who need it for their elderly patients and other at-risk groups. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure his constituents that, if they are elderly or in the at-risk groups, they should seek to get their winter flu jab, even if it is a little later than they or, indeed, we would have wished.

Roger Gale: Fairly recently, hon. Members on both sides of the House took part in a promotional exercise to seek to draw to our constituents' attention the availability of influenza vaccine and the necessity for the elderly, particularly, and those at risk to use it. We did so, confident of the information made available by the Department of Health that there was sufficient available. Clearly, that confidence was sadly misplaced. In the small village of Birchington in my constituency, over the past few days, more than 50 people have presented at Courts the chemist carrying prescriptions for vaccine that is not available. A ring-round suggests that no chemist in the area has any vaccine at all. It is no good saying that it will be January before the vaccine arrives. When will people get it?

Patricia Hewitt: As I have just told the House, we already have orders from GPs who have run out of vaccine, and we are filling those orders. We still have several thousand doses of flu vaccine in our own stockpile. Those are being made available to GPs in the order in which GPs place their orders to us. We will continue to fill those orders and, because of the problem that has emerged, we have secured additional stocks of flu vaccine. We have done so despite the fact that the manufacturers are reporting far higher global demand than was the case last year, so we have responded promptly to the problem that has emerged.
	I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the GPs in his constituency are responsible this year, as they have been for every year since winter flu began, for placing their orders. They did so. The number of doses available to our country is significantly higher than last year, and was sufficient for 100 per cent. take-up of the vaccine among the elderly and the other at-risk groups. It is something of a puzzle, it is fair to say, that at a point in the year when, by the end of October, only about half of the over-65s and only about a quarter of the under-65s at risk had been immunised, the stocks have already run out. There are clearly lessons that need to be learned for next year. This year, the priority is to get our stocks out as quickly as possible to the GPs and replenished, so that other GPs who have not yet placed their orders can get them.

Kate Hoey: Given the cost to the economy of millions of people missing work with flu, is it not time to examine widening the at-risk category to allow anyone who wants an influenza jab to obtain one free of charge?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. We constantly keep under review the groups for which we recommend a winter flu vaccine and take advice from the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation.

Nicholas Winterton: I declare an interest—as a result of the session in the Palace of Westminster, I am one of those who has fortunately had the winter influenza jab. I fall into the vulnerable group. Was the Secretary of State actually alleging that general practitioners have not ordered as many doses of flu vaccine as they should have done this year? If the Department of Health were to order a larger quantity of vaccine in order to hold a larger balance in case of an outbreak or pandemic, would the vaccine go off? Does the flu vaccine go off after a time, which would prevent the Department ordering a larger quantity? I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) that a far wider group should benefit from the vaccination.

Patricia Hewitt: As I have said, because the flu virus takes on a different form each year, it is not possible to stockpile winter flu vaccine from one year to another. As we did with considerable success in previous years, this year we ensured that GPs placed their orders in the usual way, and we placed an order for a relatively modest, but none the less significant, stockpile of 400,000 doses in case any GPs faced difficulties. I have already referred to one manufacturer having a problem with one of its production plants, which has delayed the delivery of supplies to some GPs who rely on that particular company. Last year, there was also a problem with a production facility, but we were able to step in.
	We do not know exactly how many doses each GP ordered, although the overall figures suggest that GPs ordered at least as many doses as they did last year—they probably ordered more than that. Those supplies have now run out, despite the fact that at the end of October the same proportion of people in the at-risk groups had been vaccinated as last year. We are ensuring that our stockpile is distributed to GPs as quickly as possible, with the exception of a small amount that we have ring-fenced for poultry workers, and we are supplementing that stockpile with the additional 200,000 doses to which I referred earlier.

Tony Wright: My right hon. Friend will recall that I gave her some anecdotal evidence about the matter in this House on 17 October, and she asked her officials to make sure that there was not a problem of the kind that I described, which was the appropriate ministerial response. As she has said, however, we still do not know what has happened, which is a problem and a puzzle. People such as me were asking whether it was likely that demand for seasonal flu vaccine would increase because of the attention paid to avian flu, but did the Department factor that point into its calculations? If there is a question about the vaccinating practices of GPs, is there any check on whether they are giving the vaccine to priority groups only?

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises important points. He refers to the problem that he had encountered, which he mentioned to me on 17 October. After that, I checked with the Department and established that there had indeed been delays because of production problems with one manufacturer. Those problems were overcome and the delayed supplies were then delivered to the GPs who had ordered them. We also put in place a national audit process so that we could track exactly what was happening. GPs regularly provide information to their primary care trusts, mostly through the computer system, on the numbers of people in the at-risk groups whom they have vaccinated. I gave those figures and proportions to the House.
	If somebody who is not in an at-risk group asks for a flu vaccination because they think that it might be a good thing to have this year, perhaps because of the publicity that they have read about avian flu, that does not mean that a GP necessarily should or will give a vaccination to that person. GPs are not required to report to PCTs on vaccinations given to people who fall outside the at-risk groups, although those figures might become available later in the year when they claim reimbursement for such vaccinations. We have stressed—we did it again in the letter that went to GPs—the need to focus on the priority groups. Those people are most in need and will most benefit from the vaccine. Given the shortages that have arisen in so many GP practices, it is absolutely essential that supplies are reserved for those groups.

Iris Robinson: Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that GPs will be directed to stay within the at-risk patients guidelines for the vaccine so that the worried well, who are allegedly being vaccinated, do not receive the vaccine until the crucial groups are catered for? Given that we face an extreme winter period, surely the vulnerable must be first in line to get this much-needed vaccine.

Patricia Hewitt: I agree. The whole point about having priority groups is that they should get priority. The letter that went from the Department yesterday to the flu co-ordinators and the advice that goes through them to GPs stresses that the vaccine should now be directed towards the priority groups—the elderly, younger people at clinical risk and carers—who are at risk.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that not all of us who are in the categories that qualify for the flu jab have responded? I suppose that I qualify, having had a tumour removed and a heart bypass. I have a lot to thank the national health service for, and I rise to support it again. I have heard the figures. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the last year of the Tory Government there were 6 million flu jabs, yet this year there have been a record 14 million flu jabs? When I have mine next week, if I go—I found out this morning that it will be available—it will be 14 million and one, at least. Can there be a more sickening sight than Tory MPs who voted against—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State will answer just one supplementary.

Patricia Hewitt: I entirely agree with all the points that my hon. Friend has made. In particular, I stress that more vaccine has been made available in Britain than ever before, and that it has been received by people who are, I hope, predominantly in the priority groups for whom it is of most benefit.

Nigel Evans: The Secretary of State says that lessons have to be learned for next year. What lessons has she learned, given that she does not seem to be taking any responsibility for the crisis that we are facing? Steve Flynn of Mellor in my constituency contacted me today. He is an asthma sufferer who was told that he could not get the flu jab this week. He said, "I'll ring back next week", and was told, "Yes, give us a try." I then phoned both my Clitheroe practices, which expect it to run out of the vaccine at the end of the week. Will the Secretary of State say how long the 400,000 doses that she has in the current contingency stock are likely to last, and will she ensure that all practices, in rural as well as urban areas, get access to it?

Patricia Hewitt: Some 110,000 doses from the contingency stock that the Department holds have already been delivered; 200,000 doses have been allocated to orders and will shortly be distributed; 40,000 doses are currently available for order; and a further 50,000 will be delivered to our distributors in the week beginning 5 December. As I said earlier, 10,000 doses are being reserved for poultry workers. In other words, a total of 80,000 doses will still be available for order. We will distribute them in the order that GPs place their orders. Whether GPs are rural or urban, the doses will be distributed on the basis of first come, first served.
	My colleagues in the Department and I take extremely seriously our responsibility for monitoring exactly what is happening, ensuring that we get our contingency stock to GPs, who, for whatever reason, have run out of stocks, and for supplementing our stocks and getting them to GPs who continue to need them as quickly as possible.

Michael Connarty: My right hon. Friend will recall the letter that she wrote to all hon. Members asking them to launch a campaign in their constituencies to get elderly people to take up their flu vaccine. That happened in Scotland as well as in England. Will she therefore look seriously at getting the figures correct? There are either 11 million people in England and 14 million throughout the United Kingdom or there are simply 11 million people who need the vaccine. We need to know whether the supply of 14 million doses to which she referred is available throughout the UK and whether it is required by 14 million people.
	I hope that my right hon. Friend will analyse where the vaccines went from the manufacturers' point of view. I am worried about people who pay for their vaccines and never claim anything from the NHS—she never knows whether fairly well, economically active people take the vaccines from those who require them and are at risk. I should like her to check with the manufacturers how many doses were supplied to GPs and therefore how many went to people who did not require them.

Patricia Hewitt: My hon. Friend raises important points. We need to get much more information than we currently have by the end of the winter. As I said earlier, the estimated production total from all the UK vaccine manufacturers is 14 million doses—around 1 million more than the previous year and well over double the figure some eight years ago.

Michael Penning: May I tell the Secretary of State that the excellent GPs in my constituency will have heard with dismay her blaming them for the incompetence of her Department? When can she guarantee that the rationing will stop—by January, February or at the end of the winter, when our people have already suffered?

Patricia Hewitt: This is not a question of blaming the GPs or anybody else. Since winter flu vaccination started, it has been the responsibility of individual GPs to order what they believe they need for their practices, taking into account the Department's advice on the risk groups for whom immunisation is a priority. As I have said several times, the number of doses—14 million—available this year is significantly higher than in previous years and should have been more than adequate for not only 100 per cent. take-up in the at-risk groups, which we have never achieved, but for others, including health care workers, for whom immunisation is often desirable.

Adrian Sanders: The last time the Secretary of State spoke on the issue, I asked her whether there was a need for a Government information campaign to deal with public confusion about the differences between a seasonal flu jab, a pandemic and avian flu. In her reply, she said that the Government's information campaign on seasonal flu had already been completed. Who is therefore to blame for those non-vulnerable and ineligible groups seeking the flu jab—the Government for not informing the public properly, the media for confusing the message that the Government needed to convey or the public for not understanding the Government's message?

Patricia Hewitt: In line with contingency plans and World Health Organisation guidance, we have published a great deal of material, all of which was well tested on the public to ensure that it is as clear as possible. We have made that available to GPs and on a variety of websites. We do our best to brief the media on the difference between bird flu, which does not exist in Britain and poses a very small risk to human health in Europe generally, a possible pandemic flu of a currently unknown strain, and winter flu, with which we have been dealing in the usual way. We have done our best to communicate that information as clearly as possible.

Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State said that last year one in four of the elderly at risk did not manage to get vaccinated. It is reasonable to infer that those people are more likely to be infirm and housebound, and therefore less able to get to their GP's surgery for their vaccination. Does the Secretary of State want GPs to carry out domiciliary visits in order to reach the elderly infirm, of whom there are increasing numbers, at home?

Patricia Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Because we give priority to the elderly and other clinically at-risk groups, and because GP practices are paid specifically for vaccinating the people in those groups, there are already quite a lot of programmes of that sort. District nurses, for instance, go to old people's residential homes, or to very frail elderly people who might well be housebound, to offer them the flu vaccine. However, there has never been a 100 per cent. uptake and GPs tend to base their orders for the vaccine on what they used the previous year, as they do not want to be left with unused stock. The GPs and the Government do everything possible to ensure that vulnerable elderly people get the protection that they need and deserve.

Points of Order

Laurence Robertson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Government made major announcements today on the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland. They also announced the implications of that reorganisation on the education, health and social services sectors. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has referred to the proposed changes as "major" and "substantial", yet he has chosen to make the announcements in written form, rather than by coming here to announce the proposals on the Floor of the House of Commons.
	You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, of the large number of right hon. and hon. Members who take a close interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland. Given that the proposals in the written statements are so fundamental and far-reaching, would it not have been more appropriate for the Secretary of State to have made a statement here in the Chamber of the House of Commons, where all of us who take an interest in the affairs of the Province would have the opportunity to question him and to contribute to what is a very important debate?

William McCrea: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The announcement that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made today details some of the most radical changes in the way in which Northern Ireland is to be administered. The statements cover not only local government but health, social services and education, and the total number of public bodies involved in those sectors is to be reduced from 67 to 20. That will have an impact on hundreds, if not thousands, of employees. Surely, rather than announcing such important changes at a press conference in Northern Ireland, the Secretary of State should have come to this Chamber to allow the Members of Parliament elected by the people of Northern Ireland and other right hon. and hon. Members to ask him questions about the changes. Mr. Speaker, will you invite the Secretary of State to come immediately to the House to make his statement here?

Kate Hoey: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is getting increasingly difficult for people in Northern Ireland to feel that they are being governed by people who understand what is happening there. Surely this matter should have been discussed by the parliamentary representatives of Northern Ireland, who do not get the chance to have such discussions now that there is no devolved Government or any other way of doing so. This is quite wrong, and I hope that you agree, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State should have come to this House to make these announcements.

Peter Robinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not bordering on contempt of this House for the Secretary of State to have asked his Ministers to invite Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly to briefings on the announcements that he has made today, rather than coming to this Chamber? Instead, he slinks away to an hotel to make his statement.

Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) for giving me notice of his point of order. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has indeed made four written statements to the House today on the structure of local government in Northern Ireland. I have no doubt that there will be an opportunity to discuss the proposals in the House. I also note that some of the proposed changes will require legislation, so there will be opportunities for the House to consider them in due course.

Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We have been expecting delivery later this week of the National Audit Office's annual report on the 20 largest defence projects—a report that always commands widespread public interest. To my surprise, this afternoon the Press Association carries a story that the Minister responsible for defence procurement, Lord Drayson, has held a press briefing providing a partial interpretation of the forthcoming NAO report. I have checked with the Public Accounts Committee, which tells me that the report is embargoed until one minute past midnight on Friday.
	I understand that the Ministry of Defence claims that the timing of today's press briefing and the NAO report is coincidental. Even if we allow for Lord Drayson's relative inexperience of the courtesies of parliamentary procedure, is it not unacceptable that a Department of State should be engaged in what clearly amounts to a naked attempt to pre-empt the report of a universally respected and impartial public agency?
	The PA report states:
	"The MOD took the unusual step of releasing the figures three days before the National Audit Office publishes its annual report on major defence projects."
	That report will show, apparently, that the combined cost of the 20 biggest projects is still running at about £1 billion.
	As I am sure you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition are always handicapped by having sight of public documents of this kind only 24 hours before publication. Is it not a grave discourtesy to us and, indeed, to all Members with an interest in these matters, that the Ministry of Defence has sought to use its privileged position to taint and pre-empt public reaction to the forthcoming NAO report? If you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, can you advise me on what we might do about it?

Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I can reply to the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) first. That might help the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton).
	Obviously I am not aware of the circumstances surrounding the matter raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot. This is the first time that it has come to my attention. However, I would be very angry indeed if information required for the House went first to journalists. I am not happy with that, and I condemn such an action. The best advice that I can give the hon. Gentleman is that he should allow me to investigate the matter. My officials will look into it this afternoon and will get in touch with the appropriate Minister.

Gerald Howarth: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am extremely grateful to you, as, I am sure, is the whole House. I am sorry that I could not give you notice of the matter earlier, but it came to my attention only about an hour ago. I thank you warmly for, as ever, seeking to protect the interests of Members.

Nicholas Winterton: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Let me say from the Back Benches that I am extremely grateful for your response to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). The whole matter is tremendously important to some of us whose constituencies contain defence industries. Four trade unionists from BAE Systems visited me at the House today. Please will you use your best offices—I know that you will—to ensure that statements of importance to Members are made in the House and not outside?

Mr. Speaker: I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. All information should come to the House; it should not go to television studios or reporters.
	I am so glad that everyone is so pleased with the Speaker. I hope it that it lasts at least for the afternoon.

British Subjects (Registration)

Gregory Campbell: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to enable citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the Untied Kingdom to register as British subjects.
	The Bill will offer people born in the Republic of Ireland after 1949 who have associations with the United Kingdom through residency some of the rights that are currently given to those born before 1949. It will provide political, practical and symbolic recognition of those affected and will allow them to join and to be treated in all other regards as British subjects. That end is achieved by amending the British Nationality Act 1981. There will be a requirement that anyone applying to register as a British subject under the provision swear an oath of allegiance to the Crown, as provided in schedule 5 of the 1981 Act.
	It is not easy to estimate the number of people who would wish to avail themselves of that scheme, but the 2001 census for Northern Ireland provides some evidence. Its figures show that the number of people born in the Republic of Ireland, but now resident in Northern Ireland, is around 40,000, though it does not indicate how many of them were born before 1949 or give any indication of the number who might wish to avail themselves of the provision. In the Northern Ireland Westminster parliamentary constituencies, the number of people born in the Republic of Ireland ranges significantly, from less than 1,000 in one instance to more than 5,000 at the other extreme.
	There is a long history to these matters, Mr. Speaker, dating way back to the Act of Union 1801 and perhaps long before it. For present purposes, Members will be content to note that I will confine myself to the last century in general and the last 50 years or so in particular. I will point out that there is already a scheme in place for those people in this position who were born before 1949.
	The law as it stands makes provision for anyone born before 1949 in the Republic of Ireland with associations with the UK—as defined in the 1981 Act—to become a British subject. Indeed, we have the ludicrous position whereby those born in Northern Ireland who consider themselves Irish, though they have never lived in the Irish Republic or voted in an Irish election or paid Irish taxes, can avail themselves of an Irish passport by a straightforward process of completing an application form and enclosing the fee, yet those born a few miles across the border in the Republic since 1949, having lived in the UK for many years, having voted in UK elections and having paid UK taxes, cannot avail themselves of a British passport without going through the cumbersome procedure of applying for what is known as naturalisation.
	It is impossible to understand the issue without fully appreciating the relationships between all the people who live within the British Isles. Just a few weeks ago, we remembered those who have died in various conflicts, including the first world war. At that time, many born in what is now the Republic of Ireland fought as British soldiers in the British Army. As I have already explained, the law reflects their circumstances, as they were obviously born before 1949. It is those born after that arbitrary date, some of whom were descendants of those soldiers, who are denied the same option.
	The last few decades have inevitably focused on events in Northern Ireland and the history of our Province. There has not been much focus on the history of the Republic of Ireland since partition. One is inevitably driven to generalities when dealing with such matters. For example, in the 1920s, the drawing of the boundary between what is now Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland was not without contention. Some areas with a significant Protestant or Unionist population were not included in Northern Ireland. The reduction in the number of Protestants living in the Republic from 1921 to today is also a matter of historical fact.
	The reasons why that has been the case are a matter for another day, but quite a number of those people have moved to Northern Ireland. As I have explained, if those who moved were born before 1949, they are already catered for, but many born in the Republic of Ireland after that date will be able to benefit from the Bill. These people, aged 56 and under, are indistinguishable in every respect from other British citizens in Northern Ireland—except in their formal nationality. As a result, they travel on Irish passports and are legally regarded as citizens of the Republic of Ireland, despite many of them regarding themselves as British. To qualify for British citizenship on another basis—if such is available to them—they are required to undergo the lengthy process that I outlined earlier.
	I mention only in passing the approach taken by the Republic of Ireland to those who are born in Northern Ireland. Under article 1(vi) of the British-Irish agreement—the treaty section of the Belfast agreement—anyone born in Northern Ireland has the right to identify themselves as Irish or British or both, as they so choose; it is a matter for them. They also have the right to be regarded as Irish citizens. This allows me, living in Northern Ireland, to regard myself as an Irish citizen if I so wish, yet some of my neighbours—those born, for example, in County Donegal in the 1950s and 1960s, but who have lived in the United Kingdom for almost all their lives—cannot currently become British subjects without some inconvenience and additional cost.
	I do not believe it too much of an assumption to accept that the majority of those in Northern Ireland who would wish to benefit from this change in legislation are from the Unionist tradition, but it would of course be open to all to whom it applied. None the less, since I raised this issue publicly in Northern Ireland, there has been no opposition to the provisions. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine how anyone could oppose this anomaly's being resolved.
	This Bill is important not just in a symbolic, but in a very practical, way. It is important to these individuals that they be recognised as subjects in the country in which they live, contribute, vote and pay taxes.

Eric Forth: I am very unhappy about this proposal. It carries with it a number of very important assumptions and implications with which I am certainly not prepared to go along at this stage; it needs a lot of further debate. The first assumption is the casual one that the good folk of Ireland should continue to have special privileges in this country that others do not have. Of course, Ireland is a proud member of the European Union, as, indeed, is this country—for the time being. That suggests that for fairness and even-handedness, we should treat Ireland in exactly the same way as we treat other EU member states: no better and no worse. This constant demand for special treatment for Ireland strikes me as anomalous, to say the least. If the Irish want their country to be treated as a sovereign nation within the EU, they should surely accept the responsibilities that go with that. So there is a basic problem with this proposition that we have to face up to.
	I turn to another difficulty. The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Campbell) made some play of the fact that the naturalisation process is extremely difficult, arduous and strenuous. I do not think that that is so, but if it is, it is properly the case. Surely British citizenship is a privilege that should be somewhat arduous and difficult, rather than casual and easy, for people of any other nationality to obtain. So the idea that we make the privilege of British citizenship very simple and easy to get strikes me as odd. We should move in the other direction instead, given the problems that we face with people coming from other countries to this country. If, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, they come to live here for a long time, pay taxes and so on, there is a process open to them whereby they may apply to become British citizens, and it is a perfectly proper and correct process. I hope that that process is retained. Indeed, I could easily be persuaded that it should be made somewhat more difficult, rather than easier.
	I have given two basic reasons why I think that this proposal should be resisted, certainly until we have explored its implications a lot further than we are able to today.
	Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Gregory Campbell, Kate Hoey, Michael Fabricant, Andrew Mackinlay, Lembit Opik, Rev. Ian Paisley, Mr. Peter Robinson, Mr. Nigel Dodds and Mrs. Iris Robinson.

British Subjects (Registration)

Mr. Gregory Campbell accordingly presented a Bill to amend the British Nationality Act 1981 to enable citizens of the Republic of Ireland resident in the United Kingdom to register as British subjects: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 16 June, and to be printed [Bill 91].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[10th Allotted Day]

Welfare Reform and Incapacity Benefit

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the debate on welfare reform and incapacity benefit. I must tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Malcolm Rifkind: I beg to move,
	That this House is extremely concerned that the Government is failing to tackle welfare reform despite promises to do so; recognises that the pensions system is in crisis; notes that the Prime Minister believes the Child Support Agency is not suited to carry out the task that it has been given; believes that the New Deal has failed to deliver; notes that 116,000 more people are claiming incapacity benefit than in 1997 despite the Government's pledge to reduce the number; is deeply disturbed that the Incapacity Benefit Green Paper, which was due to be published in the summer and then the autumn, will not now be published until January; believes that this is due to continuing conflict between the Prime Minister and the Department for Work and Pensions on the desired content of the Paper; and calls on the Government finally to deal with the increasingly urgent need for welfare reform, for the benefit of users of the system and all taxpayers.
	My first, and very pleasant, duty is to welcome the new Secretary of State to his responsibilities. I am getting rather good at this, as only six months ago I welcomed his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). The right hon. Gentleman is no less than the fourth person to occupy the role in just over 12 months. The Prime Minister had better get careful: to lose one Secretary of State is a misfortune, to lose two is clearly carelessness, but to lose three suggests a degree of serial incompetence in 10 Downing street. In part, that explains some of the incoherence that we are experiencing in welfare policy.
	Of course, we wish the new Secretary of State well. I hope that he will not mind if I borrow a phrase from pension language and say that he will find his Department rather difficult to handle, with very few direct benefits for him. He will expect to make most of the contributions and will find that a difficult task. One of the questions on which we will judge his performance is whether he can live up to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside. Despite his other failings, he was a big beast and could hold out against 10 Downing street when that was appropriate. The Secretary of State does not yet have that reputation, and we wait with interest to see whether he can earn it.
	Welfare reform is an appropriate subject for debate today. When they first came to office in 1997, the Government chose to adopt it as one of the major issues on which they would be judged. It was one of the great themes of that election, but the Prime Minister essentially fell at the first hurdle. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was appointed as the Minister in charge of welfare and invited to think the unthinkable. However, he was out of government within a year, and never emerged again.
	That was our first evidence that, on welfare reform and many other issues, the Prime Minister is very powerful when it comes to rhetoric, but very poor when it comes to delivery.

Edward Balls: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: I will in a moment. The Prime Minister likes to give the impression that he leads from the front but, on a great many issues, he prefers to go for public opinion when the going gets tough. In effect, he tells people, "Tell me where you wish to go, in order that I might lead you."

Edward Balls: In 1997, the Government introduced the new deal, which has reduced unemployment in my constituency by 80 per cent. and helped 550 single parents into work. Why does the right hon. and learned Gentleman want to abolish the new deal? Is that a coherent policy?

Malcolm Rifkind: Like the hon. Gentleman, we know that most jobs offered under the new deal are not permanent. It has not had the impact that had been hoped for, and a powerful argument for using the private and voluntary sectors to find jobs is that they tend to offer long-term or permanent employment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Ian Austin: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: I hope that the House will forgive me, but I intend to make my speech. I will accept interventions, but this debate is about the incoherence of the Government's welfare policy. That is what we shall concentrate on.
	On so many issues, at the first sign of difficulty, the Prime Minister tries to distance himself from the policy of his own Government. Only last week, the Prime Minister dropped broad hints at the Dispatch Box that he was enthusiastic about the suggestion that the Child Support Agency should be abolished—he knows the low esteem in which it is held by the public. But of course, soon after the Prime Minister left the Chamber, No. 10 Downing street and the Department for Work and Pensions were asked for confirmation of the policy, and we then heard the magic word, "clarification". That made it clear that there was no intent to abolish the CSA. There was no new policy on the CSA: the Prime Minister simply wished to make a short-term impact.
	The same thing happened with the deal that was done between the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the public sector trade unions. The Prime Minister let it be known how unhappy he was with the deal that had been made, as if somehow it had nothing to do with him. His attitude was, "Forgive me, I'm only the Prime Minister. I can't be expected to be held responsible for deals made by my Government." But we know that that deal has been enormously damaged by the Government's attempt to argue that the rest of the population should work longer and retire later while simultaneously sanctioning a deal for their own employees that will take 40 years to come into effect. It is a poor situation, and the Secretary of State will have to acknowledge that.
	We are discussing welfare policy as a whole today, but as the motion implies I shall concentrate specifically on incapacity benefit, which is one of the areas where the Government have most fallen down on their stated ideals since they came into office.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman probably knows that areas in my constituency—Bridgend and Rhondda Cynon Taff—saw the rolling out of the pathways to work pilots. It is right to say that since the Government have been in power the number of incapacity benefit claimants has risen from 2.6 million to just over 2.7 million. However, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman confirm that if the trend established under the Conservatives had continued, the increase would have been from 2.6 million to 4 million? This Government have tightened up the system and helped people back into work under the pathways to work pilot.

Malcolm Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman might think that he is being logical, but he should remember that logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. He should not use that sort of nonsense argument if he wishes to impress the House.
	This is a debate about incapacity benefits, which are received by many millions of our fellow citizens, the majority of whom are sick or disabled. I am proud to have been a member of a Government who introduced improvements to the financial security and wellbeing of millions of our fellow citizens who, through no fault of their own, are sick or disabled. Of course, when one introduces such improvements, there is an initial high take-up, but that should be welcomed because it improves the wellbeing of our fellow citizens. However, the Government cannot rest on that case. When they came to office in 1997, they said that the number claiming—the hon. Gentleman rightly said that it was 2.62 million—was far too high. The Prime Minister said then, and has said every year since, that 1 million of those people should be in employment and not on benefit—

Edward Miliband: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: No, I shall not give way until I have finished my point.
	The Prime Minister and his colleagues should be judged by the policy on which they came to power, which—

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: No, I wish to develop my argument and then I will take interventions.
	The starting point that we have is a Labour party which said that the number of claimants was far too high at 2.62 million and that it was an overwhelming priority of a Labour Government to reduce that figure by—it hoped—1 million. What has been achieved in the past eight years?

Edward Miliband: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: No. The hon. Gentleman does not want to be reminded of the facts, but he will be reminded that far from reducing the figure by the million that the Government sought as their target, the number of people claiming incapacity benefit has gone from 2.62 million to 2.74 million—120,000 more claimants than when the Government came into office.
	The situation is even more alarming than that. The biggest increase in that overall total is in the number of people who have been claiming IB for stress or depression, subjects that by their nature are far more difficult to prove or disprove and where general practitioners have the greatest difficulty in establishing the reliability of the claim. The figure was 592,000 in 1997, but it is now more than 1 million, a 39 per cent. increase. That is the mark of the Government's failure.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I appreciate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's generosity in giving way again on that point. He did not accept my figure of 4 million if the Conservative policy had continued, but will he accept that since 1997 the Government have succeeded in tightening up the gateway so that although people already on incapacity benefit will, as part of our policy, be increasingly well protected, the trend for people going on to incapacity benefit is downwards? That was certainly not happening under the Conservatives.

Malcolm Rifkind: Only the hon. Gentleman, or perhaps some of his colleagues, could claim that an increase of 120,000 is a downward trend—[Interruption.] He will be difficult to persuade because he uses a system of grammar that is not known to the rest of the human race. That is a matter on which we will have to agree to differ.
	By the Government's own standards, they have failed over the past eight years. There has been a remarkable collapse. Each year, Ministers have to say the same thing. In 1997, they were saying that a million people needed to be found jobs and in 2004, after they had already been in office for seven years, there were still a million people who needed to be found jobs. Only last year, the Secretary of State's predecessor found yet another million people who still had to be found jobs, yet nothing has happened and that is typical of the Government's approach.

Anne Begg: I was interested to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman say that he was proud to have introduced incapacity benefit. The reason for reform is that the benefit itself has put barriers in the way of disabled people who want to get back into work. How can he be proud of that?

Malcolm Rifkind: I did not say that there is no case for reform. Of course there is, as there would be for any other major innovation. I am saying that the Government have completely failed to meet that case; they have completely failed to deliver the policy that is required.
	At the beginning of the year the Government announced a major new strategy, launched by the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. That was two Secretaries of State ago; it is difficult to keep up, as the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions will appreciate. On 2 February, when the Department of Work and Pensions five-year strategy was launched, the Government announced, with the hype typical of them, that they were launching the
	"biggest change in incapacity benefits since they were created".
	That sounds pretty impressive, as though the Government were at long last getting to grips with the problem, yet when we looked at what it meant in practice we found three things.
	First, we found that all that the Government proposed to do was to publish a Green Paper—not a White Paper. One might have thought that if they had already worked out how to implement the greatest reform in incapacity benefit it would have been followed by a White Paper, which could have gone out for consultation. But no, we were promised only a Green Paper.
	Secondly, the new policy would be implemented—if it ever was—not in 2005, or even 2006 or 2007, but in 2008, three years from now. Thirdly, the most extraordinary part of the announcement, which is, I think, still Government policy, is that all the marvellous new benefits would not apply to a single one of the 2.7 million existing IB claimants but only to new claimants.
	In their announcement the Government said:
	"The reformed benefit will provide enhanced financial security for the most severely sick and disabled"
	Very good. None the less, not one severely disabled person currently receiving the benefit will have the ghost of an opportunity to enjoy any of the new benefits. The same announcement stated that there would be
	"more money than now for all those claimants who take part in work focused activity".
	More money than now, but not for anybody receiving the benefit now. For some reason best known to the Government, no advantage will be obtained by the 2.7 million people currently in receipt of IB.

Michael Connarty: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: I will, although I would have been happier to give way to the Secretary of State if he wanted to correct or change that policy, but as he remains silent and is on a learning curve I will give way to the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) instead.

Michael Connarty: As always, the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to teach us all something. He tried it the last time he was here. Unfortunately, I think he has got it wrong. My understanding from people that I have talked to in the DWP is that anyone who is on incapacity benefit at the moment who believes that they can have the benefit of those extra resources will be granted them. I have asked and been told that that is the case.

Malcolm Rifkind: I think we are talking about different things—unless the Government have made an announcement of a change of policy to the hon. Gentleman that he has not announced to the House. That is always possible. [Interruption.] On the contrary; we have not had the Green Paper yet. That brings me to my next remarks. All we have to go on at the moment is—

Patrick McFadden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: No. Let me deal with this matter first. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me. All we have to go on as to what the Government's policy is—

Edward Miliband: rose—

Malcolm Rifkind: No; I am sorry. All we have to go on is what the Government said in February. In February it was indicated that the new reform proposals would not apply to existing claimants, only to new claimants after 2008. Let me just share with the House—

Edward Miliband: rose—

Malcolm Rifkind: I understand why hon. Gentlemen wish to deflect me, but they will not succeed. Let me share with the House what has happened since that grand statement in February, promising the greatest ever reform in incapacity benefit. We were told then that there would be a Green Paper—seemingly it had to be a Green Paper, but at least it would be published in the summer—and that remained the Government's position. Indeed, after the general election the Prime Minister repeated at his first press conference that
	"there will be a Green Paper on reform of Incapacity Benefit before the summer recess."
	Well, what happened to it? It never appeared. And later, in July, we were told that the timetable had slipped, and that it would be published in the autumn. And then, when asked at oral questions on 31 October why the Green Paper was four months overdue, the Minister forthe disabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Work   and Pensions—the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)—said,
	"the Green Paper is not four months overdue: we made it very clear earlier this year that we would publish it in the autumn."—[Official Report, 31 October 2005; vol. 438, c. 622.]
	Well, the difference between summer and autumn is not very different from four months, but we shall put that on one side.
	Then we had a statement by the Prime Minister on 16 November that the Green Paper is not now going to be published until January of next year. Now, is January of next year consistent with the autumn? Is this what the Government mean by their policy on climate change? Are these things very difficult to control? When asked why the delay was taking place—

Lynne Jones: rose—

Malcolm Rifkind: I shall not give way for the moment.
	When asked why, the Prime Minister said, "Well, you know, there has been a change of Minister at the head of the Department." This, we are told, is the official reason why the Green Paper now cannot come out until next year. Well, when the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside was appointed Secretary of State back in May, that was not given as a reason for delay; far from it. The Prime Minister confirmed that the original timetable was going to be held to.
	We know exactly why the delay has taken place. If the Secretary of State will forgive me, it has nothing to do with his appointment. It has to do with the very serious differences of view, to put it mildly, between the Prime Minister and the previous Secretary of State—and perhaps the present incumbent. We just do not know yet what the present incumbent's view is. But what we do know—

Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: No.
	What we do know is that the Prime Minister has been putting very severe pressure on the Department for Work and Pensions—quite contrary to the Government's stated policy—to toughen up the line. We know that it is contrary to the Government's stated policy, because the Secretary of State has actually said that this is not a cuts agenda.

John Hutton: indicated assent.

Malcolm Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman is nodding. And others have said that cutting benefit is not part of the Government's reforms. And yet we know—unless the right hon. Gentleman will tell us that this is not true—that on Monday 10 October, "Channel 4 News" reported—[Laughter.] Well, we shall hear the Government's views on this in a moment—

Sadiq Khan: Scraping the barrels.

Malcolm Rifkind: I can understand the hon. Gentleman's nervousness.
	On Monday 10 October, "Channel 4 News" reported:
	"We understand the Prime Minister wrote to Mr. Blunkett over the weekend asking for cuts to the planned levels of Incapacity Benefit . . . The Prime Minister's proposals would mean"—
	apparently, Channel 4 had seen a copy of the letter—that
	"average Incapacity Benefit claimants would be ten pounds a week worse off than under"
	the Secretary of State's own
	"plans. Many could be thirty to forty pounds a week worse off."
	It was said that the Prime Minister was
	"suggesting the benefits should be time limited"
	and
	"people could not claim it after two years and would move on to other benefits or no benefits."
	On Sunday 30 October, it was reported that, following a further memo from the Prime Minister—or it may have been the same memo—the previous Secretary of State had written to the Prime Minister saying that he could not accept the last-minute, hard-line changes to incapacity benefit that were being demanded by Downing street. Apparently, the demands in the Prime Minister's own memo to the Secretary of State included replacing part of the £76 per week given to incapacity benefit claimants with tokens that could only be spent on job training courses, and that incapacity benefit would be paid at jobseeker's allowance rates, which are, of course, far less than long-term incapacity benefit.
	We will expect the new Secretary of State to indicate what truth there is in those reports. Indeed, I am happy to give way to him now. Is he willing at this very moment to come to the Dispatch Box to say that neither he nor his predecessor has received representations from the Prime Minister or from No. 10 Downing street asking for the Green Paper to be changed to become more harsh with regard to incapacity benefit? Would he care to deny that those reports are true?

Lynne Jones: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: No. Forgive me, but I am interested in the Secretary of State at the moment. I notice that he has not intervened, and we will listen very carefully to his remarks in his own speech to find out whether he deals with this matter or tries to avoid it.

John Bercow: The confusion is even greater than my right hon. and learned Friend has already eloquently described, given that the then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the House on 28 February:
	"we will not introduce time-limiting of incapacity benefit."—[Official Report, 28 February 2005; Vol. 431, c. 630.]
	Would it not be helpful if the current Secretary of State now abandoned his self-denying ordinance, came to the Dispatch Box and told us whether he can repeat that commitment?

Malcolm Rifkind: That would be very agreeable indeed. I think that I can make a fairly clear prediction that that will not happen; but of course, the Secretary of State will have my full agreement if he wishes to clarify the point so ably made by my hon. Friend.

Lynne Jones: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for finally giving way to me. While I would have grave concerns about some of the measures that he has articulated, although I have no knowledge of whether there is any truth in those suggestions, I was very happy with the proposals announced last February by the former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. However, I take issue with the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government's proposals do not help those who are on disability benefits. Will he comment on the success of the pathways to work programme? We must expand that programme, so that more people on disability benefits can get the opportunity and support that it gives. Will the Opposition support those measures?

Malcolm Rifkind: If the hon. Lady welcomed the announcement made in February, she must share my disappointment that it will be three years at least before those measures come into force. Indeed, that raises another question: the date of 2008 was given in February, but we have now had a six-month delay in the publication of the Green Paper. So we must now assume that it is highly likely that it will be 2009, not 2008, before the proposals are implemented. [Interruption.] If the Secretary of State can possibly bear to listen to the debate, he might like to consider whether the date is still 2008, or whether, as a result of the six-month delay in the publication of the Green Paper, 2009 is a more credible date from the Government's point of view.

Edward Miliband: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: No. This is a short debate; I have given way a lot; and many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to take part.

Edward Miliband: What about the pathways project?

Malcolm Rifkind: I was going to comment on the pathways project. The pilot schemes under that project are useful. They are a step in the right direction, but they are only scratching the surface. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) knows, they are only pilot schemes and could take years before they make the kind of impact that the Government pledged to make back in 2007.
	If the House and Labour Members wish to see more rapid progress, they should look much more carefully at the proposals that the Conservative party has made with a great deal of support from the voluntary sector and charitable organisations. They should listen to the views of the Institute for Public Policy Research, which is an organisation to which I would have thought that they would give some credibility—it is not exactly a right-wing think-tank. It said:
	"the private and voluntary sectors ought to have a greater role in providing employment support initiatives".
	Indeed, the proposals launched by my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), who is now shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which were part of our election manifesto, have been well received. For example, the Shaw Trust said:
	"We welcome the policy statement"
	of the Conservative party. The director of Disability Awareness in Action said:
	"The Conservatives are doing . . . good things around benefits."
	The chief executive of Scope said:
	"The Tories have recently shown a commitment to supporting disabled people into employment through its potentially radical work on incapacity benefits."
	Our proposals, which are based on using the voluntary, charitable and private sectors, are not just theoretical ideas, because they already exist in a modest way. They have been more successful because they are more flexible and sensitive. They make less use of taxpayers' funds, and based on the statistics that already exist, the jobs that they find tend to be long-term jobs.

Edward Balls: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman really trying to tell the House that the IPPR, Scope and the other organisations to which he refers support his proposal to abolish the new deal for young people and the new deal for disabled people?

Malcolm Rifkind: I am talking about incapacity benefit at the moment. I will be happy to deal with those matters on another occasion—[Interruption.] No, I will not be deflected from incapacity benefit. The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that the Government have manifestly failed to meet their own objective of getting hundreds of thousands of people who would like to work into employment. Voluntary and charitable organisations have endorsed the Conservative party's proposals and are deeply disillusioned by the Government's approach.

Stewart Hosie: The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to suggest that the voluntary sector and the organisations to which he refers will be more successful than the public sector generally. Has he compared the outcome of the pathways to work pilot projects with that of the examples that he cited from the private and charitable sectors?

Malcolm Rifkind: I commented on that a few moments ago. I acknowledged that the pilot schemes were useful and that they had made interesting progress. However, I repeat that they are scratching at the surface. They are not making the kind of impact that voluntary, charitable and private sector organisations have already made over the past couple of years on getting people into long-term employment.

Edward Miliband: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Malcolm Rifkind: I am conscious that this a short debate, so I will not allow further interventions. I am sorry.

Tom Clarke: rose—

Malcolm Rifkind: Well, I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman.

Tom Clarke: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that some of us have followed these matters for some time and recall when one of his predecessors as the Member for Kensington and Chelsea had responsibility for them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions organisations such as Scope. Although there is of course great concern that we get matters of incapacity benefit right, does he recall that those organisations rightly led campaigns year after year to plead for the right of disabled people to get out of benefits and into work? Did he agree with those campaigns?

Malcolm Rifkind: I agree with that. I pay tribute to the work of the right hon. Gentleman in those campaigns and the good progress that has been made, with many people in all political parties sharing the same ideal and objective. However, today's debate is about a slightly different issue: the fact that in the past few years, the progress that was made has slowed down and, in some cases, has not been delivered.
	The policy over which the Secretary of State has been asked to preside has so far failed. I accept that that is a serious charge, but there are pretty important witnesses for the prosecution. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead, a senior Labour Back Bencher and former Minister, said:
	"The Government has lost the plot on welfare reform".
	If the Secretary of State wants the view of someone who has occupied his own post, I suggest that of his immediate predecessor, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside, who admitted that the system over which he presided was, to use his own delicate word, "crackers".
	If those are simply the views of ex-Ministers and the Secretary of State will be influenced only by those of his current colleagues, he need look no further than the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, the right hon. Member for Barking—[Laughter.] I emphasise that that is a pure coincidence. She said in her own unforgettable words when referring to the welfare system no more recently than 1 November, as quoted in The Herald in Glasgow:
	"So far, we have done sweet nothing."
	If that is the view of the Minister, we on the Conservative Benches can be forgiven for endorsing her objective assessment of the Government's record so far.
	I conclude with a tribute to the Prime Minister, who has put his commitment to welfare reform clearly on the line. He said way back in 1996 at a Labour party conference before he became Prime Minister:
	"By the end of a five-year term of a Labour Government"—
	that would have been 2002, three years ago—
	"I vow"—
	not I promise or I hope or I aspire—
	"that we will have reduced the proportion we spend on the welfare bills of social failure . . . This is my covenant with the British people. Judge me upon it. The buck stops with me".
	On that basis, we invite the House to approve the motion and to condemn the Government's abysmal failure.

John Hutton: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the Government's consistent commitment since 1997 to pursue welfare reform to create an active, enabling welfare state where rights match responsibilities; supports the recent publication of the Principles of Welfare Reform, which builds on the foundations laid out in A New Contract for Welfare, published in 1998 and the Department for Work and Pensions' Five Year Strategy of February 2005; commends the Government's achievements in helping 2.1 million children out of absolute poverty since 1997; recognises the success of the New Deals, through which over 1.2 million people have moved into work; notes that new claims for incapacity benefit have been cut by one third since 1997; further recognises the importance of the National Pensions Debate in creating a dialogue with the public and building a consensus on pensions reform; further welcomes the progress made on tackling disability discrimination, opening doors for disabled people to remain in or return to work; in contrast, condemns the shameful record of the Opposition who spent more on administering the Child Support Agency than they paid out in maintenance and who allowed those on unemployment benefit to hit three million twice whilst also trebling the numbers on incapacity benefits between 1979 and 1997, costing the taxpayer billions and condemning millions of people to a life of benefit dependency."
	I thank the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) for his kind words of welcome; I very much appreciate them. I, too, look forward to our exchanges inside and, I suspect, outside the House. I congratulate him on his speech. It was the traditional rhetoric that we expect from him: it was high on rhetoric and depressingly low on content—in fact, there was no content or substance whatever that would allow anyone inside or outside the House to have any inkling of his solution to the catalogue of misery that he described.

Paul Goodman: You are the Government.

John Hutton: That is strangely perceptive of the hon. Gentleman. We are the Government, and we have won three successive general elections partly on the basis of our manifesto in this area, but more widely too.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman suffers from one significant problem, which was clear to all of us on the Labour Benches: not only has he no policy—let us leave that on one side; that is a big enough impediment for him—but I am afraid that no one believes a word that he has to say about welfare reform. The public are right not to do so. We remember his record and that of his right hon. and hon. Friends in government for 18 years. He said virtually nothing about that record during his speech. I intend to refresh his memory and that of all my hon. Friends.
	I pay tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), and I appreciate what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say about him. I hope that Members on both sides of the House will join me in recognising my right hon. Friend's passionate commitment to tackling inequality and to helping some of the most disadvantaged members of our community. I am sure that he will continue to make a major contribution to our debates on these and other issues both in the House and outside it.
	There are without doubt a number of very demanding challenges that face me as a new Secretary of State, but defending this Government's record on welfare reform from criticism by Conservative Members is not one of them. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's main criticism today is that our approach to welfare reform is incoherent. I totally disagree with that analysis. Since 1997, we have taken forward a programme of radical reform of our welfare state. First and foremost, we have provided much more effective help for people looking for work through the new deal. We have taken action to ensure that work pays. The national minimum wage and tax credits have helped to make the transition from welfare to work possible for hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens. We have made genuine inroads into the scandalous levels of poverty among pensioners and young families that we inherited when we came to office.

David Winnick: Is it not a fact that almost from the moment that the Government came into existence eight years ago, the winter fuel allowance was introduced? It is now £200, as my right hon. Friend knows, and £300 for the over-80s. During the 18 years of Conservative government, despite constant demands from pensioners, Labour MPs and others, no such scheme was introduced. The only scheme that was in operation was one that offered payment if the temperature was below freezing for seven consecutive days, and people on income support received £7 or £8. Is that not one of the great differences between the present Opposition and Government?

John Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and, if he will allow me, I would like to develop that theme in a minute.
	We have taken action to improve the quality and efficiency of the services that we provide in the Department for Work and Pensions by establishing, for example, Jobcentre Plus and the new Pension Service. That adds up to a record of substantial achievement, and it stands in stark and plain contrast to the period in which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea was in office. As I said, he singularly failed to refer to that record at any point, which was probably a wise decision on his part. However, I would like to refresh his memory of one or two matters.
	When the Opposition were in power their policies meant that unemployment reached 3 million and there was a 300 per cent. increase in the number of people claiming incapacity benefit. Between 1979 and 1997, the number of people on incapacity benefit trebled from 700,000 to 2.6 million—the equivalent of 2,000 extra claimants every single week. The Conservatives' dismal record of incompetence and failure wrecked families and communities the length and breadth of the country. They managed the extraordinary feat of creating 3 million unemployed not once but twice during their period of office—a unique achievement in 20th-century history—not that they cared very much about it. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), whose own contribution was to add 1 million to the unemployment figures as Employment Secretary was quoted as saying that "unemployment never matters". He will soon have the opportunity to reflect on the accuracy of his observation.
	The Conservatives were not content with raising the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits. Child poverty doubled, leaving Britain with the worst child poverty record in Europe. What did they make of that? The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) told the House that
	"all we hear . . . is poverty, poverty, poverty—la, la, la, always on the one note . . . It is just boring for Conservative Members."—[Official Report, 22 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 636.]
	Last month, 51 Opposition Members voted for the hon. Gentleman to be their next parliamentary leader.
	By 1997, one in five families had no one in work, and one in three children were growing up in poverty. No one can claim that opportunity and security were more widely distributed during the Tory years. They were not—the reverse was true. The words of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea this afternoon bear no resemblance whatever to the record of his party in government. Indeed, if there is any incoherence in the House today, it concerns the difference between his words and the actions of his party in government.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman has a unique record, because he was a Minister for the entire period between 1979 and 1997. He cannot claim, as many of his hon. Friends have done in the past few years, that the record of the previous Government had nothing whatever to do with him. His problem is that it has everything to do with him. It is on his record that he and his hon. Friends will always be judged, not on their words. Even if he wants to airbrush the record and forget his party's contribution, we will not do so.

Malcolm Rifkind: At the beginning of his remarks, the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be justifying the Government's failures on the basis that his party had been re-elected to power on three occasions. The Government in which I was proud to serve were re-elected on four occasions.

John Hutton: Well, we shall wait and see how many times the present Government are re-elected. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may have the opportunity to resurrect his own leadership election campaign after the next election. He made a very good appeal for last-minute support this afternoon.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was deeply disturbed that the welfare reform Green Paper is to be published in January. I have difficulty reconciling the words of his motion and what he said today with the comments of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron)—briefly the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rival and soon to be his new boss. The hon. Member for Witney said on 8 November in his speech to the Centre for Policy Studies:
	"Conservative economic empowerment"—
	that is something of an oxymoron, of course—
	"is a long term agenda to lift more people more securely from dependency to self sufficiency. The details of our agenda will take years rather than months to develop."
	So there we have it. We will be publishing our proposals for welfare reform within months of being returned to office, and we are accused of incoherence. The hon. Gentleman's proposals will not see the light of day for years, and we are invited to take the view that his party has a better alternative. What complete and utter rubbish.
	We take a very different view of these matters. The difference between our approach and the approach of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea could not be clearer. We believe in a modern, active, welfare state, able to help extend opportunities to people so that they can help themselves and their families, and we have put this new approach into practice in the face of opposition from both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members in the House. His approach, by contrast, such as we are able to discern it, is all about limiting the support and help that is on offer.

Kali Mountford: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for reminding the House why we should not take lessons from Opposition Members on how to tinker with welfare reform. The policy that they seemed to outline today did not deal at all with the aspirations of people who need to get off benefit but do not have the necessary support. Simply extending the hours that a person can work while on benefit would not do it. Will my right hon. Friend make a commitment to ensure that people on incapacity benefit who wish to work—there are many of them—are fully supported in that transition?

John Hutton: Yes, that is precisely what we want to do. I shall shortly come to the Green Paper. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point.
	We should remind ourselves what has happened since 1997. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said we had done nothing since 1997. He is a lawyer, and he should know the importance of studying evidence and drawing conclusions from it. Let me put my evidence to him. There are now more people in jobs than ever before—2.3 million more than in 1997. Unemployment is at its lowest level for nearly 30 years, with long-term youth unemployment 90 per cent. lower than in 1997. With almost three quarters of the working-age population in work, our employment rate is the highest of any of the G8 countries. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, not surprisingly, failed to mention any of those facts. I suspect the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) is likely to follow suit, unless he quickly amends his speech to take into account what I have just said.
	By supporting people in work and providing financial security for those who cannot work, we have helped 2.1 million children and almost 2 million pensioners escape from levels of absolute poverty since 1997. That is a positive record. We have done it, first, by building on a strong and stable economy, with low inflation, low interest rates and consistent growth—which the Opposition consistently failed to manage—and secondly, by embarking upon a radical transformation of the welfare state, introducing the most comprehensive menu of support ever provided. It is a menu of support tailored to the needs of the individual, focused on the right to work as the best route out of poverty, and balanced by a clear set of responsibilities on the individual seeking benefit.
	The new deal has helped more than 1.2 million into work since it was started in 1998. The lone parent employment rate has increased by 11 percentage points since 1997. Independent studies have shown that half of the increase in the lone parent employment rate since 1997 can be attributed directly to the impact of the new deal. Because of the measures that we have taken, there are now nearly 1 million lone parents in work and the numbers of lone parents on income support have fallen by more than 200,000 since 1997. When the Conservative party was in power, lone parents were stigmatised rather than supported. It now says that it wants to end its war on lone parents, but it has its work cut out to convince anyone that that is so. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) talks instead of
	"painful cuts in the new deal."
	I am sure that will be a huge comfort to lone parents up and down the country.
	The new deal for lone parents has helped nearly 320,000 lone parents back into work, yet Conservative Members have confirmed again today that they would scrap it, and so would the Liberal Democrats. Independent research shows that that would not even save money, as the new deal for lone parents saves the Exchequer £40 million a year through reduced benefit payments and increased tax revenues resulting from getting people off benefit and back into work.
	If the charge of incoherence can be levied at anyone today, it is the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea who is most at risk. We share neither his analysis of the problem nor his proposed solutions. We believe—our welfare reforms are proving this—that Britain can best seize the opportunities and respond to the challenges of social, economic and demographic change, if we support all those who can and want to work to enable them to make their own contribution to our society.

Liz Blackman: The pathways to work pilot in Derbyshire is doing particularly well at supporting physically disabled people back into work, but it faces much more of a challenge in supporting those with mental disabilities and mental illnesses. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will give more thought to how we can correct that imbalance?

John Hutton: I shall certainly do so. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that that is one of the biggest challenges that we face in tackling the problems that we are discussing today. Some 40 per cent. of new incapacity benefit claimants have a mental health problem, and the matter requires a broader response than the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. We must actively involve the national health service and other partners, particularly local authorities and the voluntary sector, in the future reforms of the relevant support packages.

Edward Miliband: Will my right hon. Friend comment on whether pathways to work allows existing incapacity benefit claimants to take up the scheme? I understand that it does, but in his speech the shadow Secretary of State categorically said that it does not.

John Hutton: My hon. Friend is right not to believe everything that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea, who has a closed mind on all those issues because his agenda essentially concerns withdrawing active support from people who need it to get back into work, has to say on the matter.

Malcolm Rifkind: indicated dissent.

John Hutton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke for 35 minutes, but he was unable to provide a single policy option or indicate his strategy on providing more support for people who want to work and who feel that they can work. My hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) is right to say that the pathways to work pilots have made a significant difference to employment rates and the sustainable employment rate, which is the most important thing.

Edward Balls: To be fair to the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind), it is not right to say that he made no policy proposals at all, because he confirmed his support for the abolition of the new deal, which is a policy proposal. I think that my right hon. Friend should correct the record.

John Hutton: I stand corrected, but in my book the abolition of the new deal is not a serious policy proposal; it is a giant step backwards that flies in the face of all the evidence on what works. If the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea wants to convince anyone of his sincerity about his policies on welfare reform, he should start by studying, rather than ignoring, the evidence on what works.

Philip Dunne: As the Secretary of State is fresh into his job, I appreciate that he may not have had the benefit of studying the evidence on pathways to work, which we all hope produces the results that he anticipates. However, the evidence is not clear cut, because only three out of the seven pilot areas have been going for more than 12 months, so to argue that those schemes have already produced sustainable jobs is a little premature.

John Hutton: It is a nice experience to be patronised by the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will have other opportunities to do so in future. I point out to him that there is a growing body of evidence about the effectiveness of the pathways to work pilot. He says that the he wants them to work. He needs to have a conversation with the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea, who has already decided that they are failing and wants to cut their budget.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept my invitation to visit the pathways to work project in my area in the near future? To confirm what was previously said, not only is the scheme reaching out to its target audience, but 1,000 individuals on long-term incapacity benefit have self-referred themselves on to it and are getting into work.
	Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between the two Front Benches is typified by the fact that the constituency of the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is 214th in the incapacity benefit league table, whereas my constituency is 14th? There are more lessons to be learned from my constituency than from Kensington and Chelsea.

John Hutton: Yes, indeed. I look forward to accepting my hon. Friend's invitation. I hope that he is aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform is due to visit his constituency—tomorrow, I believe, but either way she is on her way to South Wales. That is my first decision.
	When we came into office in 1997—[Interruption.] Conservative Members are huffing and puffing because they do not like to hear what we have been doing. This debate was apparently motivated by a concern that the Government have been doing nothing on welfare reform. I am simply trying to set the record straight.
	When we came into office in 1997, there was something that we wanted to put right. I am sorry to say that, having had 18 years to try to get it right, the Conservatives spectacularly failed to do so, despite 14 attempts to produce legislation. Only the most blatant forms of direct discrimination against disabled people had been outlawed. Sadly, there was still no protection for disabled employees in small firms or for disabled pupils and students. The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 lounged—that is the only description for it—on the statute book. It fell significantly short of its potential and provided no champion to help people to enforce their rights or to give employers advice and guidance on how to meet their legal obligations.
	In March this year—again, before the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea returned to this House, so he might not be aware of it—the Disability Discrimination Act 2005 completed the most far-reaching programme of disability rights legislation that any European country has put in place. It fulfilled our manifesto commitment to deliver enforceable and comprehensive civil rights for disabled people, and represented a major landmark on the road to a world in which disabled people can be empowered to live independently and be respected as equal members of society.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the new deal. Our new deal for disabled people has seen nearly 75,000 job entries since its launch in 2001, with 200,000 disabled people helped into work through our total package of new deal programmes. We are seeing very encouraging early results from our pathways to work pilots, which bring together Jobcentre Plus, the health service, GPs and employers to improve the package of support that we offer to people on incapacity benefit.
	In the first year of the pilots, the number of recorded job entries for people with a health condition or disability had almost doubled compared with the same period in the previous year. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will think that that is a step in the right direction. Their continued success has driven a significant increase in the proportion of people leaving incapacity benefit in the first six months of their claim, compared with non-pilot areas. We are now achieving progress in helping people off incapacity benefit, with new cases now down by a third since 1997 and the first falls in the total count, which is down by 41,000 in the year to May 2005.

Malcolm Rifkind: Does the Secretary of State realise that the answer to the question I am about to ask is awaited as eagerly by his hon. Friends as it is by mine. Will he use this opportunity to confirm that the Prime Minister, or the Prime Minister's office, has made representations to the Department of Work and Pensions, to his predecessor, or possibly to himself, that would have the effect of toughening up entitlement to incapacity benefit?

John Hutton: I am not going to talk about correspondence between the Prime Minister and me, just as—let us be clear—he would not have done when he was standing at this Dispatch Box. He can forget about that.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the Secretary of State give way?

John Hutton: No, I am going to make this point, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked me about it. I have made it repeatedly clear that the reforms that we are making are based on our manifesto and the five-year-plan strategy that my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), produced in February. It is clear to anyone that that agenda is not about cuts. I have made that explicitly clear and I do so again today.

Malcolm Rifkind: Will the Secretary of State therefore state unequivocally that the Green Paper—I appreciate that we do not yet have it and that it is now not due till January—will contain no proposals that have the consequence of reducing entitlement to incapacity benefit compared with current rates?

John Hutton: I have made it clear that the programme is not a cuts programme. It is not about cutting benefits.

Malcolm Rifkind: Answer!

John Hutton: I am explicitly answering the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The territory that the Green Paper will occupy is that which we mapped out in the manifesto and our five-year plan.
	We are now experiencing progress in helping people off incapacity benefit, with new cases down by a third since 1997 and, as I said, the first falls in the total count—down by 41,000. However, we have to accept the need to modernise the way in which we deliver our services. That is why we have sought improvements in the service that Jobcentre Plus provides.
	Jobcentre Plus helps almost 3,000 people into jobs every working day. It does that against a background of a major efficiency exercise. It has reduced its staff from around 86,000 in March 2002 to 74,000 in March 2005 and is on course to reduce the total number of staff employed to 65,650 by March 2008.
	Ninety-seven per cent. of our customers are now being paid their entitlement by direct debit. That move to direct payment will save the taxpayer more than £1 billion over the next five years. Centralised pensions centres provide a new telephone-based service, which is designed around the needs of today's 11 million pensioners. One year ahead of schedule, the Pension Service has already achieved the target of 2.1 million pensioners in receipt of the guarantee element of pension credit by 2006. Taken with our other measures to help pensioners, including winter fuel payments, free TV licences for the over-75s and the pension credit—all of which Opposition Members opposed—the average pensioner household is now £1,400 a year better off compared with the 1997 system, with the poorest third on average £1,900 better off.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman made several references to the lack of progress on welfare reform. The evidence contradicts his assertions. We stated in our manifesto that we would move further on the welfare reform agenda because we know that the challenges that confront our country and our people will accelerate. We are preparing the ground for that now.

David Laws: Will the Secretary of State confirm that there will be a statement on the reform or abolition of the Child Support Agency this year?

John Hutton: We will make a statement about our reforms for the Child Support Agency. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside said that he intended to introduce the proposals before the end of the year and I shall try to stick to that. We must discuss the appropriate format for the statement—whether we make it here or, as was planned, in the Select Committee. However, there will be a proper opportunity for hon. Members to examine the proposals and pass judgment on them.
	We strongly believe that people have the right to work and the right to the support that will enable them to do so. However, alongside those rights go responsibilities—the responsibility, when possible, to take up the support, actively to seek work and for each person to make their contribution to the well-being of our society.

Stewart Hosie: The Secretary of State has been generous in giving way. On rights and responsibilities, the pathways to work pilots have been labour intensive. Others will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Renfrewshire project had 40 additional advisers plus 40 additional rehabilitation staff to help with health issues. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, in expecting people to take responsibility, the Government will continue to contribute the correct amount of resources, and all the additional advisers and rehabilitation staff who are required so that the pilots are not perceived to be a cost-cutting exercise, but continue to be a genuine method of getting people who can work back into work?

John Hutton: I do not think that anyone could fairly or accurately describe the pathways to work projects as cost-cutting exercises. That is, quite frankly, ridiculous.

Stewart Hosie: That was not my question.

John Hutton: The hon. Gentleman says that that was not his question, but he certainly implied that the pathways to work projects were cost-cutting exercises. He used those words quite deliberately. We shall ensure that the active support that we provide for claimants in receipt of incapacity benefit is fit for purpose and does the job that we want it to do, which is to get people back into work, when they are able to work, as quickly as possible. Of course we will provide the appropriate level of resourcing to ensure that we can deliver such an effective policy.
	I was talking about rights and responsibilities. We want to continue to pursue this agenda because we want to continue to work towards our aspiration of an 80 per cent. employment rate, which will help another 1 million people to escape from the trap of incapacity benefit. That is why I wholeheartedly endorse the principles of welfare reform that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside published last month, and why I am committed to taking forward this reform agenda, and to building a modern, active and inclusive welfare state that balances rights with responsibilities, that matches the respect of society for the individual with respect for society by the individual, and that, above all, helps people to move away from dependency and to make their own way in the world.
	In our modern world, people can do 10 jobs in a lifetime instead of one, and they might even pursue several careers. A renewed welfare state must provide the support that enables people to make the transition from one job to another, by assisting them through rapid change and insecurity, helping them to balance the multiple pressures of work and family life, and enabling them to re-establish their independence and to benefit from the opportunities that change creates.
	In our Green Paper, which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea mentioned, we shall go further to tackle exclusion from economic activity and independence across the working-age population. We shall establish the necessary steps that we all need to take—as individuals, in Government and in the wider communities—to engage people with social and economic activity. We shall outline further measures to simplify and streamline the benefit system. We shall also develop the right support systems through which we can raise employment, skills and productivity and improve social inclusion and cohesion, at a time when the integration of communities worldwide has never been more important. As has now been made clear, we shall set out our detailed proposals in January.

Kali Mountford: My right hon. Friend mentioned dependency. I am particularly concerned about people who are in the early stages of claiming incapacity benefit. Will he take a particularly close look at how we can raise people's aspirations when they have just been told that they cannot carry on with their former employment, and ensure that, in the long term, they are properly supported in finding a different career, so that they do not feel that their life has ended at that point?

John Hutton: Of course we shall do that. There are a couple of important issues that need to be tackled head on in this reform programme. One is that we need to restore the confidence of people with a disability or an illness coming into the benefit system that they will be able to work again soon. About 90 per cent. of people who receive incapacity benefit expect to be able to get back into work soon. Sadly, however, the present system does not ensure that that happens, and we need to tackle that problem head on. That will be at the core of the proposals in the Green Paper.

Michael Connarty: One cost-cutting exercise that has been admitted to by the Department under my right hon. Friend's predecessor—and his predecessor before him—was the closure of many jobcentres. I was promised a Jobcentre Plus in the mining village of Bo'ness, but what I got was a closure, and people were transferred on to the books of a jobcentre 10 miles away. Can I have a guarantee that people who seek to come off benefits and get back into work, or to change jobs, will not be forced to travel 10 miles without being given adequate financial support to cover their costs?

John Hutton: I shall have to look into the particular circumstances that my hon. Friend has drawn to my attention. Let me put it clearly on record, however, that the modernisation and reform of Jobcentre Plus is not a cost-cutting exercise. The reforms have been backed by more than £2 billion of new investment in systems, technology, buildings and premises to improve the delivery and modernisation of that service. One of the challenges that the Green Paper will need to address—I hope that this will give my hon. Friend some reassurance—is the need to ensure that our employment advisers are out there in the community as well. We know that that can be effective and work well. Perhaps we need to look into that in my hon. Friend's constituency. I am sure that the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform will deal with this issue when she winds up the debate.

Tom Clarke: My right hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way so often. Many of us feel that he should not be rushed into setting a timetable in regard to incapacity benefit. The important thing is to get this right, because we are dealing with individuals, their families and their lives. Some of my hon. Friends have referred to the practical issues. Does my right hon. Friend agree that when medical professionals meet people, it is important for them to show both competence and sensitivity, which, sadly, has not always been the case hitherto?

John Hutton: I am sure that we will wish to make certain that it is the case. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for offering me the extra time that I clearly need to ensure that we get all this right.
	The House will be glad to know that I shall skip the rest of my speech, because I think that most of the ground has been covered. I shall confine myself to saying that I am proud that this Labour Government have helped to transform the lives of millions of people through a programme that promotes opportunities for the many, not the few. With opportunity comes responsibility, which is why our programme of welfare reform will build on both. I look forward to proceeding with the next chapter of our reforms in the new year.
	Having heard what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea at the beginning of his speech, I have no doubt that the record of this Labour Government will be strongly supported by all my right hon. and hon. Friends tonight.

David Laws: I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) on securing the debate. Unless my memory fails me, this is our first opportunity to debate welfare issues in the Chamber since the general election, apart from Work and Pensions questions on a couple of occasions.
	I must confess that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman and I accepted our portfolios after the election, we feared that, given a hyperactive Secretary of State with a record in his previous Departments of frequently announcing initiatives in all sorts of policy areas, we would rapidly be faced with a series of proposals and statements from the then Secretary of State on such issues as Child Support Agency reform, housing benefit reform and incapacity benefit reform, and would be rushed into taking positions on all of them. Every Monday since I took on my portfolio in May, I have come to work expecting an announcement from this Secretary of State or his predecessor. We are still waiting for an announcement, but it seems possible that the only welfare reform issue on which we shall hear any detailed news about the development of Government policy before the end of the year will be the one that the Government have contracted to an outside agency, the Turner commission.
	The Secretary of State was kind enough to touch on CSA reform earlier. He implied that it was the one issue on which we might expect to hear an announcement before the end of the year. Will he clarify his response to my question? He appeared to be saying that it was possible that a major announcement on reform or abolition of the CSA would emerge in the form of a statement by him or one of his Ministers—I am not sure which—to the Work and Pensions Committee. A few weeks ago, it was expected that the former Secretary of State would make such a statement to the Committee tomorrow, when I believe that it will take evidence from the present Secretary of State.
	I hope that the Secretary of State is not saying that he will make a major statement to the Select Committee rather than in the House, where members of all parties would have an opportunity to question him. As a member of the Government and as a constituency MP, he must realise that this is a matter of great concern to Members in all parts of the House. Notwithstanding the excellent job that will doubtless be done by our colleagues on the Committee, it would be very unsatisfactory if such a major statement were not made in the House. I ask the Secretary of State to reflect on that, and to clarify the position before the end of the debate.
	May I congratulate the new Secretary of State on taking over his responsibilities? He has an incredibly important job to do, and I suspect that the job of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is not looked on with a great deal of envy. It is a heavyweight portfolio, not one for which policy can be made up on the hoof, and it requires constant liaison with the Treasury to establish funding issues. It is not an easy portfolio, but is one of the most important in the Government, not only because it has a larger budget than any other Department, but because it impacts on all our constituents in many different ways. I want to touch on some of those different ways today.
	It is fair to say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset of what is a pretty short debate that there are clearly some respects in which the Government are justified in boasting about their performance, and certainly their commitment, since 1997 in comparison with what went before. Funding has been targeted at areas that have not brought a particularly large political return for the Government, which is an indication of their seriousness in dealing with issues that were not high on the political agenda before 1997.
	I also hope, however, that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that, in a range of areas, there are very serious concerns about the operation of Government policy and its future development. I wish to speak briefly today on four issues about which major concerns have been expressed about Government policy—concerns that will be shared on the Government as well as the Opposition Benches. The first relates to an aspect of the welfare system that we have not discussed today—the tax credit system, which is not directly the Secretary of State's departmental responsibility, but will be a matter of concern to him. The second is the Child Support Agency, which appears in both the Conservative and Government motions, but we have not had much opportunity to debate it so far today. I also want to speak briefly about pensions reform and, finally, incapacity benefit reform.
	Let me tell the Secretary of State that, on those issues, although we will endeavour to do our best to make life as difficult as possible for this Department in the years ahead when we believe that policy is wrong, we are more than willing to work constructively to find solutions, particularly in matters for which cross-party agreement is necessary in order to secure stability and certainty for the future. The issue of pensions policy is particularly relevant there.
	I hope that the Secretary State will take a keen interest in the tax credits system, even though it is not directly his responsibility. Since 1997, an increasing degree of influence or even control over the Department for Work and Pensions has come from the Treasury. If I may say so, the Treasury A-team has turned up today in the shape of the hon. Member for Normanton (Ed Balls), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Members for Doncaster, North (Edward Miliband) and for Dudley, North (Mr. Austin). I hope that that shows the degree of interrelationship between the two Departments and it may also suggest that the Treasury is continuing to do what it has done since 1997—keep a close eye and a short leash on Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions.
	I hope that the Secretary of State will, in looking at the development of the benefits system, reflect on whether it has really been sensible to transfer responsibility for so much of the means-tested benefit budget away from his Department to the Treasury? In particular, has it been right to put the administration of means-tested benefits for children and for people in work outside the Department for Work and Pensions, which is well used to dealing with that low-income client group, and making it a Treasury responsibility? Frankly, what I have heard in my constituency from people who work in the Secretary of State's Jobcentre Plus offices, is that that has been immensely unhelpful to the joined-up nature of the benefits system. It has not been helpful for tax credits and other benefits to be sitting in two different Departments. It has not been helpful for claimants' understanding of their entitlements and it has not been helpful for people trying to get back into employment. It has not helped the understanding of the interaction of different benefits.
	We have also seen the disastrous consequences of the lack of understanding in the Inland Revenue of the difficulties faced by many people on low incomes. The system has not only generated massive overpayments of £2.2 billion in the first year, but has driven hundreds of thousands of people into debt and poverty as a consequence of the way in which tax credits were withdrawn. Labour Members, who are committed to dealing with poverty, should be willing to listen and to address these criticisms. They will be aware from their own constituency work of that system's impact on many people on low incomes. I hope that the Secretary of State can liaise with the Treasury on whether these tax credits are sitting in the right place, and use his special position to continue to lobby the Treasury to make the changes necessary to protect the interests of those on very low incomes. That includes not automatically withdrawing tax credits before such people have had a chance to establish whether the overpayments were due to official error—the ombudsman herself has been very critical of that—and considering whether this volatile system is the right way to help such people, or whether we should go back to fixed awards, which would create greater stability. So far, however, the Treasury has shown no willingness to do that.

David Davies: I must say that I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he share my concern at the fact that, in some cases, Government agencies are refusing to take complaints from very poorly paid people who actually want to give the money back to the agency? They do not want it sitting in their bank account, given the obvious temptation, but they are encountering a great deal of intransigence on the part of the authorities, who seem not to want to reclaim that money immediately.

David Laws: I am afraid that I recognise precisely the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. In recent months, a number of people have pointed out to me at my constituency advice centre that, on suspecting that they had received an overpayment of tax credits, they had contacted the Inland Revenue, said that they wanted to repay the money and were told that there was no problem. However, they were contacted six or nine months down the line and told that there had indeed been an overpayment. Of course, by that stage the Inland Revenue is already recovering the money automatically. When the recovery takes place in-year, there is no protection of people's income in the way that the money is withdrawn. That is causing a lot of problems for people on low incomes.

Stephen McCabe: Given the hon. Gentleman's dissatisfaction with tax credits, will he be advising those of his colleagues who avail themselves of the tax credit system to stop taking advantage of it, just as he advised them to stop taking advantage of the pension system—a policy announced today?

David Laws: Given that hundreds of thousands of people are being driven into real poverty by the failure of, and maladministration of, the tax credit system, it is very sad that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make a rather cheap party political point about what is a very small number of claims. This issue affects his constituents, as well as mine. Hundreds of thousands of incredibly vulnerable people are making claims, and he would not be taking this matter so lightly if he had sat in the same advice centre that I did a couple of weeks ago. I heard a string of people on very low incomes—£10,000 to £11,000—explain that they face frightening repayments of £5,000 or £6,000, often as a consequence of errors caused by people other than themselves.
	The second issue, which has not been discussed much today—it certainly was not discussed much by the Secretary of State, or by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea, perhaps because of his party's connection with this debacle—is the problem with the Child Support Agency. Since its introduction in 1993, its operation has been a disaster. Given that we have known that it was failing for a long time, and given that the Prime Minister acknowledged that it was a mess back in 1998, it is surely astonishing that nothing has been done to make the system work more effectively. As a result, billions of pounds in maintenance due to some of the poorest families in the country has not been paid, and an unbelievable backlog of a third of a million cases are sitting in the CSA. Indeed, 80,000 of them have been sitting there for more than two and a half years without being processed. That demonstrates not only that the CSA has been a failure since it was established, but that it continues to be so. It is managing to collect only £1.85 for every pound spent on administering the system. In countries such as Australia, the collection rate is approximately £8 for every pound spent.
	We Liberal Democrats were interested to hear the Prime Minister say last week that the CSA is not fit for purpose. We thought that out of that might come the serious prospect of radical reform, be it reform of the existing arrangements, or the transferring of the CSA's responsibilities to the Inland Revenue—several Members from all parts of the House have suggested that—to enable the information that we currently collect on people's incomes to be used more effectively, and to enable a much greater deduction from the earnings of those who are determined to evade their responsibilities.
	Journalists and others such as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) left the House in a state of excitement that day, thinking that the Prime Minister had announced a policy on the CSA. However, when journalists phoned the Department for Work and Pensions and the No. 10 press office to check, they established that there was no such policy. It seems as if the Prime Minister was making up policy on the hoof in this area, as he seems to have done since 1998. That is why it is particularly important that there be an early opportunity for the Secretary of State to introduce proposals that tackle these problems, which have existed for many years, in a fundamental way, rather than simply seeking to gloss over them.

Peter Bone: As a new Member of Parliament, I have been shocked to discover the distress that the CSA has caused families. I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but can he outline where improvements could be made, or is it too late? Does the CSA need to be scrapped?

David Laws: I see the same desperation among constituents that the hon. Gentleman sees. I am particularly concerned about the fact that many of our constituents seem to have given up all hope that the CSA will ever work. I have noticed in the past year or so that, while tax credits have taken off as an issue raised at constituency advice centres, the number of CSA cases raised seems to be going down. However, that reduction does not mean that such problems do not exist; rather, I suspect that many people have been bashing their heads against a brick wall for so long that they have given up.
	The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) asked what the solution to this problem is, and it is clear that it consists of a number of elements. First, the CSA's computer system is not working properly. Given the amount of detail with which it has to deal, if it is not effective, major problems will arise. Secondly, there are simple administrative failings. That is staggering, given how long the CSA has been around and the number of attempts that must surely have been made to reform the system. I was astonished to be told a few weeks ago by an expert on the CSA that there is currently no obligation on non-resident parents to notify the CSA of a change of job or of address. That is one of the most obvious, common-sense, miniscule proposals that could possibly be made. However, it has since been confirmed by a DWP Minister that there is no such obligation.

Jeremy Hunt: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one big problem with the CSA is its complex relationship with the benefits system? People who go on to benefit have their CSA case de-prioritised; if they then come off benefit, it is re-prioritised. That complex web makes it very difficult for people to know where they stand with the CSA.

David Laws: The hon. Gentleman is right. In fairness to the CSA, the hard core of cases that it is trying to deal with involve some of the most difficult families in the country in terms not only of their willingness or otherwise to make the assessed maintenance payments, but of the number of changes in their circumstances. That argues for introducing a simple system and—to us—for folding the CSA into the Inland Revenue, so that it can use the large amount of information that the Revenue already holds on people's incomes. It probably also argues for greater use of deduction at source from the earnings of those who are unwilling to pay, which is the Australian approach. The Australian deduction-of-earnings-at-source rate is about twice the UK's. As a constituency MP, I am often amazed by the reticence of the CSA to put deduction-of-earnings orders in place, despite the fact that people are often not willing to meet their maintenance liabilities.

Anne Begg: I am somewhat confused about Liberal Democrat policy in respect of the CSA. The party used to favour returning that agency's responsibilities to the courts, but the hon. Gentleman seems to be proposing that they should be handed over to the Inland Revenue, even though he has spent a large chunk of his speech criticising that agency for its failure to deliver on tax credits. Alternatively, is he just going to tinker at the edges of the problem? After what he has said, I am totally confused about where his party stands.

David Laws: The hon. Lady should pay more attention to Liberal Democrat policy statements. Perhaps she would like a standing invitation to the conferences that my party holds around the country, as that would enable her to track the development of our policy on these matters. However, I can assure her that my party's policy is to fold the CSA into the Inland Revenue. That is because the Inland Revenue already collects a lot of information about the incomes of people who evade their responsibilities, and because it would be easier to deduct the money owed at source.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

David Laws: No. I am going to press on and deal with a couple of other issues, as time is short. I hope that reform of the CSA will be an early priority for the Secretary of State, and that he will undertake to make a statement about it to the House of Commons rather than simply to the Select Committee.
	The two other issues that I want to mention are reform of the pension system, and reform of incapacity benefit. I do not expect much information on pensions from the Secretary of State as he is entitled to say that he is waiting for the report of Lord Turner's commission. The leaks to various media sources about the contents of that report seem relatively authoritative, but we will see whether they turn out to be as accurate as most people assume. When he responds to the announcement next week of the commission's final conclusion, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not try to give answers to all the points that are raised. We do not expect that of him, but we do expect him to give a signal on two issues.
	First, I hope that the Secretary of State will give us an indication as to whether he accepts what seems to be the consensus outside Parliament, and among the three commissioners—that the increasing reliance on a complex, means-tested pension system is unsustainable over the long term. I hope that he will make it clear that, even if means testing has been necessary as a way of targeting money on poor pensioners in the short term, he will move away from it in favour of a simpler state pension system that will incentivise private saving over the long term.
	The Secretary of State will also have to address the question of fairness in the public and private sectors. If the leaks about Lord Turner's report are accurate, it is likely that he will suggest an increase in the state pension age to 67 or 69. It would therefore appear very odd for the Government to sign off on a deal with public sector workers that would allow them—even those who have not even joined the public sector yet—to continue to retire at the age of 60 for a number of years after the introduction of Lord Turner's proposal to set the state pension age at 67. I hope that the Secretary of State will acknowledge that it may be necessary to return to the issue of public sector pensions reform. The office of the Prime Minister seemed to do as much in comments made to The Times in recent days. The matter needs to be looked at more in a more fundamental way. It is possible that a second independent report will need to be commissioned—not necessarily to be compiled by Lord Turner—on the future sustainability of the pension system.

John Hutton: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I am very struck by his request that we revisit the deal on public sector pensions. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) condemned the Government for proposing that new entrants—let alone existing scheme members—should have their pension age increased to 65. What is his view on that response? His position seems totally inconsistent with it.

David Laws: The Secretary of State will know that the view among Liberal Democrat Front-Bench Members has been perfectly consistent, and that we have criticised the deals struck by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. If he wants to enlighten us in this debate, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he thinks that the deal that the Government have struck with some major public sector unions has been helpful to him, and to Lord Turner's commission, in moving the debate forward on this key issue?
	We await the Secretary of State's comments on 30 November. We will find out then whether his views are in line with those of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or whether they are more in line with those of the Prime Minister. The latter seems to be very unhappy with the deal that has been struck.

Adam Afriyie: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the complexity of applying for tax credits and benefits, and of making claims to the CSA—all of which requires long forms to be filled in—deters the least well off and most vulnerable people in society, who often suffer from dyslexia and similar learning difficulties?

David Laws: I agree precisely on that point. One of the challenges for the Government, and for all political parties, is to simplify the tax and benefits system. A couple of weeks ago, a person came to one of my advice centres from whom a total of between £4,000 and £5,000 in tax credits was being reclaimed. He had learning difficulties, and had been put in a work placement. He had no understanding of how the tax credits system worked, and was therefore facing a very unfair recovery process. Moreover, Government policy is very ambiguous about whether he would be required to repay that money.
	Finally, I turn to the question of incapacity benefit reform. We welcome the Government's intention to look at the matter seriously. Over the past 20 years, there has been a turnaround in the number of people on unemployment benefit and incapacity benefit. In the early 1980s, between 2 million and 3 million people claimed unemployment benefit, and very many fewer claimed incapacity benefit. The change since then has been enormous, and the number of people on incapacity benefit is now between 2.6 million and 2.7 million.
	Clearly, that is extremely wasteful for the economy, but it is often very undesirable for the people involved as well. As the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea noted, the Government have said for eight years that a million people on incapacity benefit want to get back into employment. The fact that that figure of a million people has been used year after year underlines the lack of an effective policy so far to change the system.
	We believe that the Pathways process helps people to get back into employment. I have visited the Pathways centre in my Yeovil constituency and it seems to be working well so far, although relevant statistics are fairly modest, as the system has been in operation for only a limited period. However, we hope that the Secretary of State will be willing to fund the Pathways process across the country, and that he will not come under pressure to deliver savings in a way that could damage incapacity benefit reform. Such savings might be achieved by time limiting payments or by turning a portion of the payments into vouchers, but they would hit a very vulnerable group of people.
	Although some people on incapacity benefit would like to work, are capable of doing so and would be helped by the Pathways process, I hope that the Secretary of State has got the message that some very vulnerable people—whose conditions are often difficult to detect—are very worried about the proposals that the Government might bring forward. They are keen to get an assurance that their position and vulnerability will not be threatened by a precipitate attempt to secure savings to fund the Pathways process.
	By the time that we next have the opportunity to debate welfare reform, I hope that the Government will have given us policies of more substance than has been the case over the past six months.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is appropriate for me to remind the House now that Mr. Speaker has imposed a 10-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. If hon. Members can make do with less than that, they will earn the gratitude of their colleagues.

Stephen McCabe: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in this short debate. I found the contribution from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) intriguing. It was almost as though he had never been away.
	Debates such as this are an opportunity to probe the Opposition. As Opposition Members have spent the past two months touring the country and the television studios with the tale of two Davids, this could be a useful debate. I recently had a glimpse of one David, the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), giving a speech in Birmingham, in which he attacked the Labour party's approach to welfare. He told us that his vision for the future promises a huge expansion of the voluntary sector. I do not know whether that was a code for cuts, but I was a bit disturbed when he went on to say what he thinks the sick, the unemployed and the disabled need. Apparently, they do not need the new deal, access to work or pathway-to-work pilots. No, according to him they need the confidence—note the confidence, not the money—to buy a new suit. Well, maybe old Etonians whose confidence has taken a bit of a knock need a quick shopping spree and all is okay, but that is not my experience of how we need to deal with some of the hard problems we face today. To parody that speech a little, I could point out that the hon. Gentleman also commented on Labour's DNA in our approach to welfare. It is my view that it is the Tories' DNA that characterises their approach to welfare. They simply despise the welfare state, as we have heard again today.
	We know what kind of Britain the Tories want. In the past, their Britain was a place where mass unemployment was a price worth paying. They trumpeted it. They declared war on every British shipyard worker, steel worker and miner. They thought that the humbling of a once proud working class was a sign of political strength. Ask my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) what crushing mining communities means. It means a generation reared on heroin. It means taking once stable communities and smashing them into the ground. It means tearing apart the very bonds of family and community that give society its cohesion. So when I hear Opposition Members accuse us of incoherence or incompetence, I wonder whether they have changed at all.
	I know that the highest concentrations of people on incapacity benefit are densely clustered in areas of disadvantage in once proud industrial and manufacturing towns, and I know that the record rises in claims in those areas occurred during the period when the Opposition were in power, because of their cynical manipulation of the unemployment figures. The party that today thinks that it can point accusing fingers at us would like the public to forget the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was once responsible for managing unemployment. Those were the days when GPs signed off healthy men on long-term sickness because their jobs were gone and no one on the other side of the House had any intention of doing anything else for them.

Nadine Dorries: The hon. Gentleman is going back down memory lane, but I have an example of my own. In my constituency, the only people who can see an NHS dentist are those who can afford to pay for one, which means that the people who need treatment most cannot get it. It was not like that in our day.

Stephen McCabe: Well, I am not surprised that the hon. Lady does not like to be reminded of the track record with which the Tories have to live. I dare say that she was not in her place for Health questions this afternoon, because if she had been she might not have asked that question.
	I contrast the Tories' record with what we have seen with Labour in power, including record levels of employment; the creation of more than 1 million new jobs; a minimum wage, which the Opposition fought tooth and nail to try to prevent; the new deal, which offers hope where none existed; and the education maintenance allowance for youngsters with talent whose only impediment is that their families are not wealthy. Contrast the pension credit, the minimum income guarantee, free eye tests, free television licences and the winter fuel allowance with the recommendation to wear a woolly hat and gloves. That was no doubt exactly the sort of cost-efficient, confidence- boosting measure of which the hon. Member for Witney would approve.
	Of course, people are anxious about proposals to reform incapacity benefit. We are talking about people who have suffered illnesses, disability or anxiety attacks and who fear for their long-term security. Our job is to demonstrate that Labour's approach to this is as caring, as determined and as fair as our approach to all the other social justice issues that we have sought to tackle.
	I think that we have a good track record. Only yesterday, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), announced a further £2.6 million for 13 choice and control pilot schemes across the country, which are designed to give older and disabled people more power over the services they use and control over their social care budgets. It is the same approach of putting the individual first that we need to demonstrate with incapacity benefit. We need to make it clear at the outset that disability does not mean "cannot work". I recall a young man at a place where I worked some years ago. He had a severe sight problem, but with the benefit of an enlarged screen he had no difficulty working with computers. He had been out of work for many years—in fact, I think that it was his first job. He loved it. He loved being useful. That is the spirit that we should seek to engender.
	We need to consider why some people are unable to enter the employment market. I understand that the current incapacity benefit claim form has only one page related to mental health. There are many stress conditions that mean people find particular work environments difficult. I have a friend who had a serious breakdown some years ago and has not worked for a long time. Recently, he started part-time on one of the pathway projects. He told me that he was enjoying it immensely and his confidence was returning. He was grateful for the support that he had received; he was working in an environment where he felt safe and could make a contribution. He is better off under the financial arrangements that we have put in place, and he has an incentive to do well. We need to provide more such help. We need a strong link between the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions to help people get back to work. The choice and control pilots pool the resources and efforts of those two Departments and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, and the same approach is needed to welfare reform.
	Perhaps the greatest fear among people who have lost employment because of illness or disability and found themselves on benefits is that if they return to work and it goes wrong they will end up poorer. If they take a risk, it may threaten their security. We must counter that feeling, and I think that we can. We need a sliding scale of benefit, with protections built into the system that guarantee that we will look after such people.

Patrick McFadden: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of the pathways-to-work programme is that the personal adviser not only advises the incapacity benefit claimant in the run up to finding work, but stays with them as they take up work to provide help and support after they have come off benefit?

Stephen McCabe: I agree absolutely. That is the difference between caring about people and trying to help them get into work and looking for a way to cut budgets.

David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Stephen McCabe: No; I should move on for the sake of others who wish to speak.
	I want to mention the 16-hour rule. During the MG-Rover crisis, we realised that it could be an impediment to people getting into training or work. I hope that we can learn from that experience when we develop our new rules on incapacity benefit.
	What is wrong with aiming for 80 per cent. employment? Unless one is the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, I can see no problem with that. It is not only good for the economy, but for the dignity of our people. Employment at 80 per cent. is a desirable target. Contrast that to the figure of one in five families where no one was in work—the legacy of the Conservatives.

Justine Greening: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Stephen McCabe: No; I am about to finish—[Hon. Members: "Hooray."] As Members are enjoying my speech so much, I will not finish quite so quickly.
	Let us do the decent thing. Let us do what only Labour can do and get on with reforming the system, giving people the chances they deserve. Let us ignore the humbug that we have had to listen to today.

David Ruffley: Just over 7.8 million of our fellow citizens are outside the labour market when they could be in it, according to the Office for National Statistics. That demonstrates that welfare under Labour is not working as well as it could.
	Eight years of Labour have given us chaos, complacency and false starts. Since 1997, the Department for Work and Pensions has had six Secretaries of State and we have had 28 White or Green papers. Nowhere is the Government's shambolic performance on welfare better demonstrated than in incapacity benefits. There are now 2.74 million people of working age on those benefits, 116,000 more than when Labour came to power.
	The Government messed up reform long before their current attempts. They reduced the value of incapacity benefit to new claimants by clumsy means-testing changes in 2001, which merely deterred existing claimants from returning to work because they feared that if they ever had to go back on to benefit they would have to do so at a much lower rate. Another change that year tightened up the IB eligibility criteria by demanding a much tougher national insurance contribution record. What was the result? A perverse effect. Certainly, people came off pure IB, but they then claimed income support with a disability premium, shoving up those numbers.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley: Time is fearfully short, so I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving way.
	There was a zero-sum game. The law of unintended consequences—classic new Labour reform.
	Since that reform, the proportion of IB claimants who had been receiving incapacity benefit for more than five years rose from 47 to 51 per cent.—Members should remember that the duration of the claim is at least as important as the number of claimants. The proportion of new IB claimants coming from the unemployment register is up from 46 per cent. in 1997–98 to a staggering 60 per cent. in 2003–04. That is despite the Prime Minister rightly saying in 1999 that IB had to be reformed because it was merely
	"an alternative to long-term unemployment or early retirement".
	The problem is that he has done nothing about it.
	Earlier, it was said that the Conservative party had no positive proposals. Let me set Labour Members straight about that. The modern Conservative party certainly has more thinking to do on welfare reform, and the new leader in December will start that work. It will take time, but we already have positive proposals on the table, specifically those we talked about last May. There should be more payment by results, with contractors paid a fixed amount per claimant on completion of various milestones for putting claimants back into employment. We need more rehabilitation, possibly with spend-to-save measures; for example, an additional fee paid to contractors to cover the cost of expensive medical and vocational rehabilitation, such as higher level physiotherapy. We also need a greatly enhanced role for the voluntary and charitable sector as, by and large, it is more effective—certainly more so than some of the state functions that I have seen in my constituency.

Anne Begg: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley: No. I am sure that the hon. Lady will understand that other colleagues want to speak.
	This autumn, as the Prime Minister looks fretfully at his legacy, he seems to be thinking quite radically about incapacity benefit—at least, if his leaked October memo to the then Work and Pensions Secretary is anything to go by. I shall quote—from a transcript that appeared in a national newspaper—the words of the Prime Minister to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr.   Blunkett), who was then Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The Prime Minister said:
	"We should publish information on the number of sick notes signed by GPs, and audit the top ten per cent . . . Employers should have a right of appeal when an employee is signed off sick . . . We could propose taking sick note certification away from GPs and create a new specialist service . . . Incapacity benefit should be paid at £56 per week, the same rate as the jobseeker's allowance"—
	which would of course be a cut. The memo continues:
	"Claimants have to attend compulsory monthly work-focused interviews . . . Those not engaging in activity lose the entire premium."
	Best, and most controversially of all, the Prime Minister said in his memo:
	"Given the cost of employment programmes, it seems that the only funding option might be to widen the scope of means-testing the system . . . Alternatively, part of the benefit top-up could be paid as a voucher"—
	for "rehabilitation and training programmes".
	I quoted at length for a simple reason—those proposals are anathema to the majority of Labour Members. We know that they object to that radical thinking, and those proposals are certainly radical. Some of them may be worth mature and serious debate and discussion, and some of them may be to the liking of the Conservative Opposition. As my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) said, if the Prime Minister comes up with good ideas, we will back him. The question is: will his own side back him?
	As I have indicated, there is much opposition to the Prime Minister's radical thinking on welfare. We may have to support his ideas; who knows? However, we know that the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) resigned his position rather than implement radical reform as dictated by No 10. We also know that when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions he fought a pitched battle—he won that one—to rule out the time-limiting of incapacity benefit from the strategic five-year review that he published.
	We have already heard from our Front Bench about the delays in the Green Paper. First, the Prime Minister said that it would be published before the summer recess. Then, the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform, who is in the Chamber, said that it would be published later in 2005. Finally, last week, the Prime Minister said that it would be published some time in January. We might think that we needed no more evidence, but there is more to come. We know that the Secretary of State for International Development did not want to take the job of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions because he knew that he was on to a loser. He would have had to defend and argue for radical reform that his own side could not stomach. Perhaps most depressing of all for the Prime Minister—it really shows that he is beleaguered—is that he cannot even install his No. 10 hawk on welfare policy, Mr. Gareth Davies—the gentleman who wrote the memo to which I referred—as a director in the DWP serving the Secretary of State, due to opposition from the civil service. As was widely reported in the Financial Times and elsewhere, Sir Richard Mottram, the permanent secretary, blocked the appointment of Mr. Davies. One of the newspapers reported:
	"Sir Richard put his foot down . . . In the old days Blair would have won the battle with no difficulty but this is just a sign of how weak he has become."
	The Prime Minister once said that in the area of welfare reform he would think the unthinkable. With the amount of opposition on his side, is not it a case of him trying to do the undoable?

Natascha Engel: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this very important debate. I did not think I was going to be called in the end, but I am very grateful to you.

John Bercow: Such modesty.

Natascha Engel: I was a bit surprised.
	I also thank the Opposition for tabling this motion on welfare reform, and on incapacity benefit in particular, because it gives Labour Members a great opportunity to showcase the many developments that we have seen since 1997. [Interruption.] Oh yes.
	The reason why the Government have placed such a consistently strong emphasis on welfare reform is that the inherited system of benefits led to the most appalling social exclusion. Welfare is, by definition, for the poorest and the most vulnerable, but welfare should also be about well-being, and for most people, work is still the best route to both. Work is how we build our self-esteem, learn more skills and self-reliance and develop our social life. It is something that every Member of the House takes for granted.
	Labour's welfare reform agenda is about helping those who want to find work find a good job, but it is also about giving extra support to those who cannot work. We have had a consistent, targeted and tested welfare agenda since 1997, with a range of successful new deal programmes. A welfare system cannot be tinkered with, but nor can it sustain massive overnight change, which I think that the Opposition have asked for. But I think everybody agrees that our welfare system must change.
	A person who has been claiming incapacity benefit for over two years is more likely to die or retire than to work again, ever. That is so wrong, and that is why we must reform our incapacity benefit system. Not just as a Government but as a society, we should be ensuring that everyone has the opportunities that we have.
	The vast majority of people claiming incapacity benefit would like to return to work, but the current system is stacked against them. Once on incapacity benefit, there is no expectation that an individual will look for work, even if it would help to improve their condition. The system that we have inherited means that 2.8 million people have effectively been consigned to a life of poverty and lack of opportunity. That is not just a criminal waste of talent; it is a crime against equal opportunities. Unfortunately, we still live in a society that does not give everyone the same chances—a society that still discriminates against sick and disabled people. It is no surprise that having a serious health condition is a barrier to work, so it is no surprise that benefit claimants have real problems getting a job.
	Our ongoing welfare reforms, of which the reform of incapacity benefit is a vital part, have been targeted and tested in those parts of the country where benefits claims are the highest. Derbyshire was one of the three initial pathways to work pilots, and covers the constituency that I represent. The pilot was introduced in 2003, through Jobcentre Plus, and I shall go into a bit of detail about this because I have heard a lot today that has demonstrated that the Opposition are not too clear in their minds about the details of pathways to work.
	Pathways to work is aimed at cutting the number of people moving on to incapacity benefit in the first place, as well as moving people who are already on benefit into work. I apologise in advance for all the jargon that I shall use now, but it is part of pathways to work. Through work-focused interviews, using specially trained personal advisers and a varied choices package, a claimant can access professional and tailored information, advice, guidance and support. The choices package is really important, because it recognises that claimants have a range of different barriers to work. People are being helped to manage their conditions by working with primary care trusts and GPs, and they are given suitable training to ensure that they are ready for jobs. This condition management programme is arguably the most imaginative and successful part of pathways to work. It recognises that an individual's condition is what initially brought them on to incapacity benefit, but it also recognises that work is sometimes the best way of dealing with a deteriorating illness.
	Fundamentally, the pathways to work programme is such a success because it focuses on what people are able to achieve rather than writing them off as incapacitated. There are hundreds of stories to illustrate that. When people who have been off work because of sickness for many years arrive reluctantly for their first work-focused interviews, they are nervous and lacking in self-confidence, but they are being given the chance to rebuild their self-esteem through condition management and work, and they have the feeling that their life is being given back to them.
	To get even more parochial, at the start of the pathways to work pilot in Derbyshire, the Staveley neighbourhood management project commissioned the Derbyshire unemployed workers centre to carry out a study of barriers to employment. Staveley had a long history of coal mining and heavy manufacturing, which used to make up the majority of the work. The pit closures and the loss of manufacturing continue to have a devastating impact on employment in the area. Many of those people in Staveley who are now long-term incapacity benefit claimants would have been usefully employed in light duties when we still had a mining industry in North-East Derbyshire. There is no mystery behind the high number of people claiming incapacity benefit, as there is no mystery behind the high crime levels and poor health.
	The unemployed workers centre's study is a very small study of about 10,000 people, but interestingly, it reflects absolutely what is happening nationally. The vast majority of people want to go back to work and the vast majority of them have welcomed the pathways to work pilot. Most people who had claimed incapacity benefit before the start of the pathways to work pilot had received no help from employment services. Now those same people welcomed work-focused interviews with Jobcentre Plus and looked forward to a return to work.
	Every month, Jobcentre Plus personal advisers in Derbyshire interview about 700 incapacity benefit claimants. These figures are small but they are really significant. Of those 700 people, 150 find work every month. This is not scratching the surface; this is real success, and the feedback is positive not just from those who are being helped off benefits and into work—advisers and employers are massively enthusiastic about being involved in these pilots.
	One of the really exciting developments in Derbyshire is the pathways agreement with Tesco, which is offering tasters and in-work support to benefits claimants. If we can roll out to the rest of the country not just the pathways to work models but the enthusiasm that comes with them, we shall be taking a huge step towards greater social inclusion and greater equality. This is the right direction for welfare reform. It is not a punitive agenda designed to force people into work; it is a positive agenda, which helps people to stay in work and allows them to develop themselves and improve their economic circumstances.
	To conclude, I want to point out again that our welfare reforms have been ongoing, they have been targeted and they have been coherent since 1997. We have tried wherever possible to break down barriers to work. We have recognised that health does not have to be a barrier to working. Over 3 million people with long-term illness or disability are at the moment in work. Work and well-being are two sides of the same coin. Our welfare system must be flexible to suit changing needs, but it must provide opportunities for people to work and greater support for those who cannot work. Our Labour Government's answer is to make policy to suit individual need. Pathways to work, which has been rolled out to a third of the country, has demonstrated that a personal advice strategy to help people into work has meant that twice as many people leave benefits and find jobs as before. Most important, they are staying in those jobs.
	The Opposition day motion calls upon the Government to deal with the increasingly urgent need for welfare reform. We are reforming welfare, and we have been doing so since 1997. I hope that after this debate the Opposition will support us both in our progress and our successes to date.

David Heathcoat-Amory: We called this debate in our own time with the aim of giving the Government an opportunity of clarifying and explaining their own policy, and we did so in a genuine spirit of inquiry on behalf of many millions of claimants, who want to know what the Government mean by reform. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) said that the Government are in a continuous reform programme. All I can say is that we have not noticed that. The windy rhetoric that accompanied the first election victory of the Labour Government has simply not been carried into practice.
	Again, in this short debate many questions have been raised and almost no answers have been provided, so I do hope that when the Minister gets to her feet to wind up the debate she will start to give us some hard answers to some of the hard questions that we have asked—not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), who in an excellent short speech asked, in effect, which side is the Department on: the Prime Minister's, or Back Benchers'—or perhaps its own side? That triangulation is going on between different bits of the Government and the Labour party, and it is profoundly damaging to any real or genuine reform.
	For instance, we have not got to the bottom of the incredible shrinking Green Paper on welfare reform, which the Prime Minister promised immediately after the election. In fact, I think that it was the first promise that he made in May this year. He said that the Green Paper would be produced by the new Secretary of State by July this year. I join other hon. Members in welcoming the new Secretary of State to his position, but I hope that, despite the fantastic turnover of Secretaries of State in the Department for Work and Pensions, he will survive long enough to see the publication of his own Green Paper.
	The victims of the continuing confusion and delay are not just successive Secretaries of State and Ministers, but more importantly, the benefit claimants themselves who are trying to grapple with a system of increasing complexity that is not only beyond their own comprehension, but very often a bafflement to those whose job it is to administer the system. The National Audit Office made some observations on that only earlier this month. It pointed out that the very complexity of the system is itself an inducement to fraud, because those who are administering the system are trying to process vast quantities of information, often of a very personal kind, and—in the language of the NAO report—that
	"may persuade some people that fraud is a risk worth taking."
	We need a massive simplification programme as part of the reform, but we know that benefit claimants are not part of the debate at all. The real dynamic is between No. 10—the Prime Minister and the policy unit—on one side and the Department on the other. The Prime Minister generally cries, "Forward." The Department cries, "Back."

Edward Miliband: May I take the right hon. Gentleman to a point of substance in the debate: the nature of the pathways to work programme? Earlier, the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) said that the programme did not apply to existing claimants. In fact—I have checked this—11,000 existing claimants have volunteered for the programme, and from February 2005, the programme has been applied to more existing claimants. Will the right hon. Gentleman correct the record on that point?

David Heathcoat-Amory: No. The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) was referring to the Green Paper programme, which will not apply—at least initially—to existing claimants, but only to new ones. Of course the pathways to work programme, to which he was not referring, applies to new claimants. That is a simple category mistake, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to refer to the Official Report.

Edward Miliband: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heathcoat-Amory: No; I will not give way again. I have answered the hon. Gentleman's point.
	What we had in February this year was a five-year plan. Despite its rather Stalinist title, it gave us some indication of how the Government wish to split incapacity benefit in two: one benefit more appropriate for those who will never work, and other benefit to become a pathway back into the world of work. We did not agree with all the substance in the February paper, but it was at least reasonably specific and somewhat detailed. So imagine our surprise when, on 7 October this year, we went back to what are called the "Principles of Welfare Reform".
	Remarkably, in eight months, the Government have gone from fairly specific proposals to very general principles. The world was rather surprised that the new policy on welfare reform was summed up in various phrases. That document says:
	"We will create a new relationship between the individual, the family and the wider community."
	It continues:
	"The Government will tackle dysfunctional behaviour head-on, and use the wider strength of neighbourliness and community to provide support through a range of interventions."
	What support? What interventions? We have got beyond principles; we want to know what the Government are going to do. Of course the reason why the Government are now taking refuge in vacuous and general phrases is that No. 10 has vetoed the specific proposals that the Government announced back in February.
	Another factor in all this, of course, is the purported discontent among Labour Back Benchers, but what we need from the Government now are some answers. We want to know how the Government want to put those principles into action. Will they still pursue the split in incapacity benefit in the way that they set out back in February? We also want to know what has happened to the promised review of housing benefit. That has not been mentioned in the debate, but in the Queen's Speech, Her Majesty read out the following sentence:
	"My Government will introduce legislation to reform support for housing costs."
	Will the Minister for Employment and Welfare Reform tell us when she responds to the debate how that is progressing? Her Majesty may not want to know the answer, but the House does.

Mary Creagh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

David Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Lady will forgive me; I must reply to some of the points made.
	The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) referred to pensions. We did not hear a word on pensions from the Secretary of State, although pensions form part of both the motion and the Government's amendment. Of course the truth about pensions is that the halving of the savings ratio under the Government has dealt a body blow to the entire concept of private sector provision. The reason for that goes back, again, eight years to 1997, when in almost the Government's first fiscal action, they removed dividend tax credits from private pension funds. The Government's siphoning of money from the private sector pensions into the Treasury has gone on year after year. If the Prime Minister wants to pick a fight with a Department, I suggest that he should do so not with the Department for Work and Pensions, but with the Treasury and the Chancellor, because that is where the damage to pensions has been done.
	In 1997, our pensions system was an acknowledged international success. We had more private sector pensions under management than the rest of Europe put together. That fact has been alluded to many times by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and other hon. Members of all parties. That policy is now in ruins. Instead, the Chancellor's contribution to welfare reform—and his main legacy from the Treasury—will be a vast extension of means testing. Again, that has been alluded to in the debate. Almost half of all pensioners are now subject to means testing and the proportion is increasing. So the Treasury is responsible for not only the policy, but the shambolic administration of child and pension credits, as we know from our surgeries and advice centres, and the developing, unresolved mess that that is producing.
	In the debate, we have seen again the wide and growing gap between Labour's words and deeds. Despite repeated promises of reform, the welfare system is complex, badly targeted and sets up perverse incentives. It is prone to error, fraud and abuse. It lets down the taxpayer and those whom it is supposed to help. We should be having an open debate on how to change the system, instead of which it is a subject of repeated wrangles and leaked memos between No. 10 and the Department. It is time that the House expressed its displeasure and dismay about this continuing state of affairs, and I urge all my hon. Friends to vote for the motion.

Margaret Hodge: I urge right hon. and hon. Members to reject the Opposition motion and support the amendment.
	We have had a short debate, but there have been several thoughtful, valuable and eloquent contributions, especially from Labour Members. It is bizarre that Her Majesty's loyal Opposition called a debate on this matter. Opposition days give Opposition parties the opportunity to lay out their alternative stall on what they would do if they were in government, but the official Opposition utterly failed to do that. Let me cite just one phrase from the speech made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Sir Malcolm Rifkind). He said at some point during his very long contribution that logic is the art of going wrong with confidence. That meaningless and illogical phrase attempts to mask the fact that the official Opposition have no ideas, no policies and no understanding of the issue.
	I am happy to welcome the Conservative party's belated conversion to the importance of welfare reform, but most people will share Labour Members' cynicism and think that its newly born interest has more to with short-term opportunism than long-term opportunity. Today's somewhat pathetic attack on our record was a cover for a policy vacuum, rather a recipe for serious welfare reform.

Malcolm Rifkind: If the right hon. Lady is upset by the attack on her record, will she explain what she meant when she was quoted in The Herald in Glasgow as saying that the Government have done "sweet nothing" on the subject of welfare reform?

Margaret Hodge: I am always delighted to put the record straight, so I am pleased that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has given me the opportunity to do so. I make many speeches about the matter and always say that during the Conservatives' 18 years in government, they allowed increasing numbers of people—up to 2.7 million—to languish on incapacity benefit, without giving those people any help or support to return them to work.
	The Conservatives are informed by their lasting values, which lead them to want to slash benefits across the piece so that they can cut taxes. The Labour Government, however, are informed by the lasting values that we have consistently articulated of opportunity for all those who can, combined with security and support for all those who need it.

Mary Creagh: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Conservative proposals to use the private and charitable sectors to deal with the most difficult cases involving incapacity benefit would lead to cherry-picking, if output-related funding were used? Does she agree that the proposals represent an attempt by the Conservative party to divide people into the deserving and undeserving poor?

Margaret Hodge: We certainly would not endorse any policy that cherry-picked people off incapacity benefit. However, the voluntary sector, especially, can play a legitimate and strong role in supporting people on incapacity benefit back into work.

Philip Dunne: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Margaret Hodge: Not now; I have only a few minutes left.
	I welcome the opportunity that the official Opposition have given us to remind all hon. Members and, most importantly, the public about the Conservative party's abysmal record on welfare and to draw attention to the Government's successes. I shall respond briefly to several of the contributions that were made.
	The hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) added little to the debate. He was good on analysis, but, as usual, short on solutions that add up, especially given his party's most recent commitment not to increase taxation. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) made a feisty speech and reminded us that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was the Minister for unemployment. My hon. Friend highlighted the importance of understanding the nervousness that individuals face on the journey of incapacity benefit reform.
	The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) got a lot wrong. I think that he would not take interventions because he did not want to be corrected, so I would like to correct one point for the record. People who move from benefits into work have the entitlement to come back on to that benefit level. Indeed, we are extending the time for that to two years from April 2006 so that we can deal with the insecurity that some people feel.

John Bercow: Will the Minister take an intervention in the interests of correction?

Margaret Hodge: One quick one.

John Bercow: It is always a pleasure to listen to the Minister—I say that in all seriousness—but we are entitled to be clear about the historical record. Is she saying that she was misquoted by The Herald in Glasgow in so far as she was alleged to have said
	"we have done sweet nothing",
	or is she simply saying that she is now embarrassed and has changed her mind? Which is it—I think we ought to be told?

Margaret Hodge: I am in some difficulty because I have not actually seen the quotation. However, I have dealt with the issue already.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on her passionate and strong speech. She pointed out the importance of work to individuals and the way in which work and well-being are two sides of the same coin. She showed a proper understanding of the issues and the way in which we can bring down the number of people on incapacity benefit.
	I agree with the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) about simplification of the benefit system. We are attempting to do that day in, day out, whereas when his party was in government it failed even to think about the measurement of fraud. The Conservatives never measured fraud, let alone took action to reduce it, whereas we have done that successfully.
	Let me put on record the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his party are wrong to suggest that existing benefit claimants cannot take advantage of the opportunities in the pathways to work pilots—they can, they do, and they are returning to work. It is absolute nonsense to suggest that we are not talking to interested groups about welfare reform. The Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), and I have done that. Indeed, our new Secretary of State has already visited several groups that would be affected by the proposals that we shall put before the House and the country when we publish our Green Paper.
	The debate has given us the facts with which to judge which political party is fit to tackle welfare reform. The simple fact is that we are completely divided—[Laughter.] No, we are completely divided across political parties on the reasons behind the programme of welfare reform and the purpose of it—[Interruption.] Perhaps Conservative Members should listen to this.
	Labour Members are committed to our agenda because we see it as a means through which we can unlock opportunity for all so that all can find jobs and individuals can support themselves and their families, realise their potential, enjoy the sense of purpose and self-worth that comes with work and develop a network of friends and companions. We are committed to our agenda because we recognise it as a means of eradicating poverty from British communities and British society. We are committed to our agenda because we understand that by realising individual potential, we can build a stronger economy in the more competitive global environment in which we have to live.
	For the Conservative party, the agenda is benefit cuts to finance tax cuts. It is about fostering individual greed at the expense of wider interests and needs. Compassionate conservatism is about dismantling the active welfare state and destroying the support and opportunities that we in government have created. The Conservatives' policies in government created dependency, chaos, incoherence and despair.
	The words of the Opposition motion give us a clear indication of their incoherence and direction of travel, whereas the Government's record on welfare reform is one of which we are immensely proud. The challenges that we face in the immediate and long term are complex and important, but the platform that we have built is strong, the values that inform our approach are right, and the task of translating those values into programmes is one we welcome and on which we shall deliver. The truth is that the Conservative party has not just lost the argument, it has lost the plot.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the Government's consistent commitment since 1997 to pursue welfare reform to create an active, enabling welfare state where rights match responsibilities; supports the recent publication of the Principles of Welfare Reform, which builds on the foundations laid out in A New Contract for Welfare, published in 1998 and the Department for Work and Pensions' Five Year Strategy of February 2005; commends the Government's achievements in helping 2.1 million children out of absolute poverty since 1997; recognises the success of the New Deals, through which over 1.2 million people have moved into work; notes that new claims for incapacity benefit have been cut by one third since 1997; further recognises the importance of the National Pensions Debate in creating a dialogue with the public and building a consensus on pensions reform; further welcomes the progress made on tackling disability discrimination, opening doors for disabled people to remain in or return to work; in contrast, condemns the shameful record of the Opposition who spent more on administering the Child Support Agency than they paid out in maintenance and who allowed those on unemployment benefit to hit three million twice whilst also trebling the numbers on incapacity benefits between 1979 and 1997, costing the taxpayer billions and condemning millions of people to a life of benefit dependency.

Climate Change

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now come to the debate on climate change. I have to announce to the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Oliver Letwin: I beg to move,
	That this House endorses the principle of a cross-party consensus on carbon reduction.
	The motion was tabled by my hon. Friends and myself, as well as by Liberal Democrat Members.
	When we last held a debate on climate change in the House, Government Members reasonably requested us to put before the House a more emollient motion if we sought consensus on the way forward on climate change and carbon reduction and to remove from that motion any vestige of criticism of the activities of Her Majesty's Government. We could not have obliged more than we have done this evening. Liberal Democrat Members and I have concocted a motion that does not offer any criticism whatsoever of the Government but seeks consensus on the need for consensus. As someone inclined to emollition I cannot imagine a more emollient solution.

Colin Challen: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear something up for me? I find a great deal to recommend in the motion, but will the hon. Gentleman oblige me to vote on it?

Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making an intervention—uniquely, in my experience—that enables me to progress my speech. I hope that the motion will not be forced to a vote. That lies not in his hands but in the hands of the Government Front Bench team and the Whips. If they choose, as I hope they will, not to force the matter to a vote we should be delighted. We shall have to wait and see how Ministers respond.

Jeremy Browne: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would have been helpful if the Government had added their amendment to the motion rather than seek to delete it?

Oliver Letwin: That would have been a possibility, but in the spirit of seeking consensus and avoiding criticism I shall assume that the Government would have done so if the hon. Gentleman had recommended it in advance.
	The broad framework around which the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and I seek consensus is well known to Members who attended our previous debate. I do not want to dwell on it in detail, as it would bore the House, so I shall remind hon. Members who attended that debate and inform hon. Members who did not that we do not imagine for a moment that consensus would consist of point-by-point agreement on every possible policy relating to climate change, which is manifestly impossible. Nor do we imagine that it will go beyond, at least at first, the establishment of common ground on principles on which the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment and I broadly agree. The nation should have a settled framework of year-by-year targets and requirements for carbon reduction, and that framework should include the appointment of a well-articulated independent body capable of informing Parliament on a regular basis of whether, as we look forward many years, the Government's policies are calculated to achieve those targets to a 90 per cent. or a 10 per cent. degree of probability, or whatever is the judgment of that independent body.

John Gummer: If such a framework were set up, should not the Government be prepared to accept that it could be used to investigate the view that they are talking to their advisers on the basis that they will not meet their Kyoto promises, which is very damaging?

Elliot Morley: No, we are not doing so.

John Gummer: Advisers certainly say that that is the case. Should not the Government refuse demands from the European Union that we should break our word on our emissions limit? Should they not also accept that we ought to ban hydrofluorocarbons instead of being the dirty man of Europe and opposing attempts to ban them?

Oliver Letwin: My right hon. Friend has an extraordinary record as a successful Secretary of State for the Environment and is a beacon of light to the Government in that respect. However, I shall not pursue the line of inquiry that he recommends because I hope that the answers to his questions are in the affirmative, that the Government and succeeding Governments will recognise not only where they are succeeding, but where they are failing, and that that will occur not in the spirit of pointing the finger, but in the spirit of seeking, as a nation, to achieve real and sustained progress.

Elliot Morley: I was surprised at the comments from the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who is generally well informed on these matters. I want to make it clear that there is not the slightest intention that the Government will renege on their Kyoto agreements. We are well on track to meet our Kyoto targets—one of the very few industrial countries to do so. We expect not just to meet our Kyoto commitments, but to surpass them.

Oliver Letwin: I shall not pursue that debate, although as the Minister well knows, though it is probably true that the Government will just meet their Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions targets, the reduction in carbon that both the Minister and I would like to see is not happening. It will be recognised by the Minister, because he has recognised it on previous occasions, that after a period during which the dash to gas created significant carbon dioxide reductions, more recently it is a combination of what has happened on adipic acid and the performance of farmers that has largely rescued the Kyoto targets. So there is considerable force in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, as the Minister knows.
	I hope that across the Chamber this evening, rather than engaging in defensive and offensive manoeuvre, we can get to the point where we understand that as a nation we face a very serious problem, and that we can agree on a framework for tackling it.

Tony Baldry: My right hon. Friend is in danger of being far too kind to the Government this evening. Did he not see the report by The Economist? In their election manifesto in 1997 the Government promised to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. In their 2001 general election manifesto they promised to reduce emissions by 20 per cent. Nothing has happened. It is only now that they are proposing to set up a review next year to work out how they meet their Kyoto targets. I caution and counsel my right hon. Friend not to be too kind to them.

Oliver Letwin: I understand the temptation on the part of my hon. Friend and others to point out uncomfortable facts, but in the end, those are not uncomfortable facts for the Government. They will probably sail on without anybody in this country, alas, caring as much as they ought about those things. It will be other issues that bring about the downfall of the Government, in all probability. We in the Chamber all know that. Alas, the danger that arises in relation to the points that my hon. Friend makes is a danger for the country. That is why it is so critical that we translate good will into action.

Chris Ruane: In the interests of consensus, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that targets should be set. One of the targets that the Government have set is 10 per cent. renewables by 2010. To achieve that, there will be a massive roll-out of offshore wind farms, the first of which will be off my constituency—200 turbines. Do the right hon. Gentleman and his party support such proposals?

Oliver Letwin: We will in all probability need to see a considerable extension of renewables in this country, if we are to get anywhere near meeting the targets that we seek. I accept that there will frequently be constraints against which those bump up and tensions that they create, and as a nation we will have to accept some things that we do not find comfortable. I do not know the particularities of the case that the hon. Gentleman cites. I would be happy to come and look at it for myself.
	We must understand that it is not for us in the House or for Governments to make decisions about particular technologies, to pick winners or to advance the causes of this or that. It is for us—this is the onus of what the hon. Member for Lewes and I are trying to do in the process in which we have engaged—to attempt to bring it to the attention of the political establishment of this country that we need a settled framework which is translated through market incentives into the production of appropriate solutions, which will be wide ranging in nature. So politicians determine direction, and the market responds with solutions. That does not mean that it will be easy or that there will not be tensions or conflicts. It means that instead of debating particularities in the House, we can debate the general thrust and create a set of arrangements that deliver against targets.

Mark Tami: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Oliver Letwin: No. I shall make progress, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I shall happily give way to him later.
	My purpose in launching the debate is to engage in an inquiry. I want to try to understand what I genuinely do not fully understand—whether there is the basis for cross-party consensus. That depends on the answer to the question: what is it that the Prime Minister and other Ministers have been saying over the past few months, and what is the position that they take? I say that in a spirit of genuine inquiry, as I think will become evident in the remainder of my remarks.
	There are three questions that need to be examined. The first is the relationship between carbon reduction and economic growth; the second is the relationship between targets and technology; and the third is the relationship between UK actions and global actions. Everybody in the Chamber today—looking around me, I see many who have concentrated on these matters for many years—will recognise that around those three sets of issues revolves much of the answer to how we approach climate change.
	It is in relation to the three issues that the recent statements by the Prime Minister and other Ministers cause the inquiring mind to ask where exactly the Government are headed. Are they headed in a direction that can create the basis for the cross-party consensus that we seek?
	I shall start with a pessimistic interpretation of those remarks and move on to an optimistic interpretation. I hope that that will set the scene for the Minister to cast light on where we are as a country and as a group of people engaged in a seminal political discussion. The pessimistic interpretation has been offered by some of the lobby groups and it is this: that the meaning behind, and perhaps to some extent in, the Prime Minister's recent statements is that the Kyoto process is dead, that domestic targets will largely be abandoned hereafter, that it is impossible to combine economic growth and serious and binding international and national targets, and that we should therefore do what we can to promote technological solutions that help to alleviate the amount of carbon being produced, engage in activities such as emissions trading, express aspirations and hope for the best. I think that I have given a more or less accurate summary of what the pessimists assert is the meaning of the Government's actions.
	I am loth to come to the conclusion that those are the meanings behind what has been said, and much that has been said does not fit with that interpretation. There is a basis for hoping that that is not what the Government mean. Yes, I have read various articles and it is difficult to know which means what. I shall now put the optimistic interpretation, and if the Minister in his response can give us a clear idea where the Government stand, that will be an enormous step forward.

Richard Ottaway: My right hon. Friend mentions that the Kyoto process is dead and looks to technology to provide a solution. Does he agree that one of the reasons why Kyoto is dead is because of the United States, yet it is the United States that probably has the most to offer in providing technological expertise and investment, which will help us in the long term to achieve the sort of consensus that he seeks?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend has mistaken my meaning. I am not saying that the Kyoto process is dead; I do not believe that the Kyoto process is dead; and I am not even sure whether the Prime Minister thinks that the Kyoto process is dead. I was trying to say that on a pessimistic interpretation of what the Prime Minister said, one might have thought—some of the green lobby have concluded that this is what he thinks—that the Kyoto process is dead.
	Bringing the United States, China and India into the process is critical, and technology is an enormously important component in doing so, and it is also true that the United States is a significant contributor to bringing technology into the process. This is my question: does the Prime Minister believe that Kyoto and binding targets are dead, because they are not consistent with economic growth and hence cannot bring in China and India—and, while we are at it, Brazil and Russia? The pessimistic interpretation is that is what he believes.
	Turning to the optimistic interpretation, I hope that the Prime Minister and the Government recognise that a combination of growth, energy security and carbon reduction is needed—I am fairly confident that the Government believe that; I certainly believe that; and I expect that the hon. Member for Lewes believes that. We have got over the idea that there is a choice—in my view, it is a false choice—and I think that the Government have, too, between growth and energy security on the one side and carbon reduction on the other.
	If it is true that the Government have got over that false dichotomy, this is the next question: do they also agree that we must recognise that neither the UK alone nor even the EU can make a significant difference to the amount of carbon in the atmosphere and hence to prospects for climate change? I am fairly certain that the Government accept that proposition because it is, after all, a matter of fact. Returning to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), I think and hope that the Prime Minister's remarks should be interpreted as meaning that the way to bring China, India and the US to the table is to identify technologies that will enable those countries to combine economic progress and growth with the reduction of carbon.

John Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for eight minutes, and I cannot see the consensus. [Hon. Members: "Eighteen minutes."] That long, eh? If he wants to create a consensus, he should put forward some ideas that we can discuss. So far, he has put forward no ideas. Is he relying on his new hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), to do that for him?

Oliver Letwin: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that when it comes to building a consensus, it matters how the various parties view the fundamental questions that we are dealing with, then he is not as acute as I had hoped. It is important to understand where the Government are coming from and whether it is the same place as Opposition Members are coming from, because if we are coming from the same place, there is a real chance of obtaining agreement, and if there are fundamentally divergent views, there is not a real chance of obtaining agreement. The proposition is perfectly clear.

Alistair Burt: Will my right hon. Friend advise me on an area in which growth is evident and in which a response to climate change issues would mean a great deal? Given the new building and development that is taking place around the country, does he believe that a certain percentage of new building in this country should include sustainable energy facilities, such as solar panels and domestic wind turbines? If we were to reduce domestic energy usage across the country, it would make a profound difference to how people see energy and carbon reduction.

Oliver Letwin: As my hon. Friend has implied, there is no doubt that if we are to achieve anything like the 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050, which we need to achieve to play our part in getting to the international target of 550 parts per million, we must take considerable further steps on building regulations, energy efficiency in the home and micro-generation, because the Government's own figures, perfectly sensibly, rely heavily on energy efficiency as the major component—it constitutes almost half of the total—of how they hope to achieve those targets. We are nowhere near those targets yet, because building regulations have not been sufficiently organised.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I shall start on the right and move across, because of my ideological disposition.

Paddy Tipping: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the pessimists are offering a false dichotomy between technology, new ways of working and targets? When we consider the post-Kyoto situation in 2012, does he believe that we should use both levers—technology and targets? Is that the way to find the consensus that he seeks?

Oliver Letwin: Oh yes, abundantly. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman and I agree, because I have often heard him speak on the subject, and I more or less agree with everything that I have heard him say. As a result of his intervention, I shall advance my argument by one stage: I hope that the meaning behind the Prime Minister's remarks is that the Prime Minister recognises that we must build from the bottom up—from an understanding of the technology to an understanding of how the technology can allow countries such as China, India and the United States, consistent with their own competitive positions, to engage in economic growth while reducing carbon emissions. I hope that he hopes that it will be possible to build on top of that a second round of binding international targets, which would show that Kyoto is not dead—incidentally, such targets should be vastly more effective and ambitious than those in the first Kyoto treaty and broadly encompass the whole world of carbon producers. That is what I hope that the Prime Minister believes; that is what I think that the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) believes; and that is certainly what Opposition Members are now largely unified in believing. My argument is that if we all believe that, it is an extraordinarily strong basis for consensus.

Mark Tami: Like the right hon. Gentleman, I hope that we can reach an agreement in this House that will last for many years. Although his new-found allies may speak well in this House, however, at a local level they seem to oppose every new form of energy generation, whether it is renewables or other technologies.

Oliver Letwin: I do not think that that is fair. I have spent the better part of my political life fighting off Liberal Democrats who were trying to take my seat, so I have some experience of their campaigning techniques. It is not only Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, but Conservatives—this will always be true of all parties and all politicians—who respond to a considerable degree to local circumstance and to concerns other than those about climate change. We must all understand that each and every one of the technologies that the hon. Member for Sherwood and I believe need to be brought forward have constraints, some of which are environmental constraints. There is a continuous tension between each technology and something. In some cases, the tension is between a technology and a resource; in some cases, it is between a technology and the economics of the situation; and in some cases, it is between a technology and the environmental consequences for the landscape or cityscape. We should not deride one another across the House if we exhibit some of those tensions, which are an inevitable part of democratic politics.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Are not targets without the means to achieve them dangerous, because they provide an illusion of progress that is not followed through on the ground? We all know that with rising worldwide energy use, the only realistic way of meeting the threat of climate change is a nuclear power programme. All else is sophistry, illusion and wishful thinking. Is that not the consensus that we should be building worldwide?

Oliver Letwin: My right hon. Friend and I do not wholly agree, although I agree with a large part of his remarks. We will not make progress simply by having targets or even by translating those targets into market incentives. We will make progress only if the market incentives are then translated into action in the form of technologies that work, that combine energy security with carbon reduction, and that allow economic growth. One of those technologies may very well be nuclear. However, the existing nuclear power stations constitute a reduction of about 5 per cent. in our total carbon output. The entirety of our electricity supply industry constitutes only about 40 per cent. of our carbon production. Very much wider steps will need to be taken than merely on one particular type of plant, be it nuclear or otherwise, in this country and elsewhere. Whether we consider the power sector and carbon sequestration, disaggregated power sector, microgeneration, and energy efficiency in the home, vehicles and the substitution of traditional engines by hybrids and biofuels, or air travel and what we do to constrain the emissions from that, we are considering a vastly wider range than the "nuclear or not nuclear" debate has allowed for.
	I would say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that I fear that the Prime Minister's habitual brilliance in highlighting particular items in order to carry the political day has led him to overstretch the importance of nuclear power and the debate around it because he believes that that will allow us not to focus on the many other things that are, in many cases, very much more difficult to achieve. Yes, let us keep an open mind about nuclear as a part of the solution, but let us not suppose that it can ever be the full solution—or, indeed, that any amount of power plants of any kind can ever be the full solution.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Oliver Letwin: I will give way twice more and then I am going to progress to the end of my speech. I hope that no hon. Member will condemn me for speaking for a long time, as most of it has been taken in responding to interventions.

David Hamilton: The right hon. Gentleman says that there are wide-ranging solutions to the host of issues that we face. Surely one of those issues must be the fact that billions of tonnes of coal reside in this country, giving us an edge against many of our European competitors and linking the economy with how we deal with climate change. Carbon capture is an extremely important area, and we should not throw it out of the discussion.

Oliver Letwin: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, just as I agreed with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells that nuclear may be an important component. Carbon sequestration or capture may well play a huge part, not only in this country but in China and India, because undoubtedly coal stations will need to be built in great number. Of course, it is not yet a well-established technology, but we all have high hopes that it will become so and that it will become affordable.

Michael Weir: I hope to be part of this emerging consensus, but I am particularly worried about nuclear, which my party cannot support and I suspect that the Liberals cannot support it either. Can the right hon. Gentleman define what he means by technologies, because a technology such as nuclear may be as bad as a polluting one such as coal without the proper technology to clean it up?

Oliver Letwin: I do not anticipate—neither does the hon. Member for Lewes—that we will ever reach complete agreement on each item that lies under the umbrella. We are trying to reach agreement on the shape of an umbrella that will protect us from a rainstorm. We may then have different views of what to put under it, agreeing on many and disagreeing on some—for example, nuclear power. What I mean by technologies is a vast range of technologies, some of which are highly controversial and some of which are not controversial at all. Very few people believe that improving the cladding in roofs is a controversial measure. I suspect that very few people would think it wrong for someone to have a dish-sized windmill on their house, although one currently has to apply for planning permission for one of those but not for a dish, which is rather an oddity. We must ensure that the structures that we create bring forward the lowest-cost solutions that are compatible with achieving the carbon targets. Only then do we have to start arguing about the fine detail of whether there are particular technological solutions that for some reason or other some people cannot stomach.

Gregory Barker: My right hon. Friend is rightly focusing on the range of exciting technologies that are out there, in contrast to the Prime Minister's mono-focus. Is he aware, though, of the work that is being supported by the Bush White House? We disagree with so much of its approach to climate change, but it has directed billions of federal dollars into the hydrogen economy. The brain drain that that is causing from other areas around the world into US universities is striking. Does he have any ideas on how we can encourage that sort of research to come back into the UK?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. In fact, the United States as a whole has been making huge advances, not only in carbon reduction but in measures to help carbon reduction hereafter. Many of those have been at state level, but some have been at federal level. What my hon. Friend says is abundantly true. Billions have been invested in forward-looking activities such as trying to promote carbon capture and, as he says, the hydrogen economy. We should be grateful to the United States for investing that money and making that effort. I agree that it would be good if we, too, were to participate in that endeavour.

Elliot Morley: It seems to have escaped the right hon. Gentleman's notice that it was announced more than 18 months ago that the UK and Japan are collaborating on clean fuel technology, which includes fuel cells, hydrogen and hybrid power. Collaborating with major G8 nations and the United States is an important way forward. He would be very wrong to think that the UK is ignoring those approaches.

Oliver Letwin: That is to be welcomed.
	I return to the key question. Is the pessimistic interpretation right, or is the optimistic interpretation right? Is the Prime Minister saying that he has come to the conclusion that when the chips are down economic growth and carbon reduction cannot go together and we cannot have targets intervening between the two; or is he, as I hope, espousing the view that we need to start by advancing the technology, then persuade the rest of the world that one can combine carbon reduction and growth, bind the world into targets, and thus bind ourselves into targets over the long term and be able to translate those through market incentives into real action through technological change?
	If he is saying the latter, then there is the basis for a splendid agreement between the two sides of this House—that is, the three parties and perhaps the smaller parties as well—about the framework. I hope that through the medium of this debate and others that may follow it, we can get to the point—I accept that this is difficult for any Government to do—where the Government say, "In the national interest, we are willing to lay down the normal process of claiming credit for the Government when things go right and knocking down the Opposition whenever possible", and instead try to create a series of arrangements which mean that over a 50-year period, come one Government or another, we continue with a settled set of targets, an institutional framework that brings those repeatedly to the attention of Parliament, and a political apparatus that makes it well-nigh impossible for any politician to go against that trend and very easy for any politician to go with the trend despite the democratic pressures that will be exerted at any given election.
	That may be too optimistic a hope, but it is my hope this evening. If the Minister is now going to reaffirm, as I hope, that my optimistic interpretation of the Prime Minister's remarks is the right one, he will in that self-same set of utterances be justifying the hope that we can arrive at the cross-party consensus that would give him a basis for not resisting our motion.

Elliot Morley: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
	"welcomes the leadership shown by the UK Government internationally on climate change, and the important progress made at the July Summit and at the recent meeting of the Dialogue on Climate Energy, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development; further welcomes the recent announcement of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation and looks forward to the publication of the climate change programme review; recognises the importance of building greater understanding and support among all sectors of society for action on climate change; and further welcomes new ideas and contributions from all quarters that help to reduce carbon emissions."
	I thank the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) for initiating the debate on climate change. It is an important issue and the discussion gives me an opportunity to outline the Government's policy progress and tackle some issues that have confused the debate. Some of them are based on misunderstanding, but others are based on malice. However, I shall deal with those matters later.
	Climate change is the greatest environmental challenge that the world faces. I therefore welcome the fact that, at least in this country, there is a general political consensus about the need for action and the threat that climate change poses. The debate is about how far we go, what we do and the sort of mechanisms that we put in place. I explained that to a Conservative Canadian Member of Parliament. The Conservatives in Canada stated in their manifesto that if they won the election, they would withdraw from the Kyoto protocol. I explained that that was not the position in this country, where there is general political consensus. I hope that he took that message back.
	The Prime Minister has taken a strong international lead on the matter. Even his detractors would accept that he has put climate change at the top of the political agenda, especially this year, given our G8 and EU presidencies. That is why we are also committed to implementing our ambitious domestic programme. I emphasise that 2005 has been a milestone year in relation to climate change. In February, the historic Kyoto protocol entered into force after its ratification by Russia. That ratification owed a great deal to lobbying by the Prime Minister and our actions to encourage Russia to do that.
	The UK's G8 and EU presidencies have focused the international community's attention on climate change. In December, 10,000 people will meet in Montreal for the United Nations forum on climate change convention. That will be a crucial meeting, not least because we have to begin the process of looking to Kyoto's second commitment period, which is 2012.
	There appeared to be confusion among some hon. Members who intervened earlier. We have a binding commitment under the Kyoto protocol to reduce greenhouse gases in the UK by 12.5 per cent. by 2012. We are on a reduction of 12.5 per cent. now. Figures are likely to go up and down because of the different sorts of pressures on emissions. However, we have no doubt that we are well on target not only to fulfil our goal by 2012, but to doing better than that.
	We have another target—a voluntary, domestic, national target of reducing CO 2 by 20 per cent. by 2010 and by 60 per cent. by 2050. That is a self-imposed national target, not a legally binding agreement. It is a commitment by the Government to go beyond our obligations under the Kyoto treaty.

Colin Challen: I congratulate my hon. Friend on accepting another voluntary target. He has agreed to accept the 25-5 challenge to reduce his personal carbon emissions by 25 per cent. in five years, and no later than 2010. Several other Members who have accepted that challenge are present. I am not allowed to name them, but they are here and they are making that personal effort. Does my hon. Friend agree that the one way that we can establish a consensus is by acting on our words, not simply spouting all the time, thereby demonstrating that we mean what we say, take the matter seriously and are prepared to take action ourselves?

Elliot Morley: I accept that. Taking action on climate change is important globally, nationally, regionally and individually. All of us can do a great deal about our lifestyles. That is why I have made such a commitment. Like many hon. Members, I consider my impact on the environment and try to reduce it.

Richard Ottaway: I think that the Minister was looking at me when he made his remarks about Kyoto. I accept that he may well hit his Kyoto targets. He may or may not hit his other domestic targets and we can argue about that. However, it all pales into insignificance if countries such as India, China and the United States do not hit their targets. Cutting our emissions by 1 or 2 per cent. is nothing compared with the output of the Chinese economy, which is growing at 3 or 4 per cent. a year.

Elliot Morley: In all fairness, that argument is advanced often and there is some truth in it. When the United States alone accounts for 25 per cent. of global emissions, it is essential to engage with it and get it to take action. It is also true that while India and China do not have to have legally binding targets under the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the Kyoto protocol, they are enormous emitters. Their emissions have been increasing year after year. It is precisely for those reasons that the Prime Minister has been considering the way in which we can engage countries such as India, China and the United States, and especially how we can get India and China to do more when they will not accept binding targets.

John Gummer: I understand the Minister's problems and he knows that I generally support what he is trying to do. However, let me bring him back to the 20 per cent. figure. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) gave me some hell in the Chamber because the Labour party made that commitment in opposition. When it came to power, it reiterated it. If the Minister is now telling me that achieving the 20 per cent. is not possible—I warned him that it would be difficult—will he understand that we shall keep him to it? It may be a voluntary target, but if this country does not manage to meet it, the rest of the world will believe that we have let it down on the most important issue that confronts us. The Government will not stand up and say, "We're going to do it. This is how we're going to do it. These are the tests that we'll use. We'll have independent checks every year." That undermines our belief in the Government's integrity and intelligence on the matter.

Elliot Morley: It is true that the 20 per cent. target was a manifesto commitment—we were the only party to do that. It is a difficult target and we knew that when we made the commitment; I do not want to be dishonest about it. However, I believe that we can fulfil the target. We are attempting to do that. It is why we have the climate change review, which we will publish in due course. That will give some indication of the additional steps that we intend to take to move us towards the 20 per cent. target. Although it is true that, in common with every major industrial country, emissions have risen in the UK, if it were not for the steps that we have taken since 1997 there would be an additional 8 per cent. increase in CO 2 . I freely acknowledge that we need to do more. That is the point of the review. As the amendment makes clear, we welcome contributions from other organisations and, indeed, other parties to our approach and the sort of measures that we should take.

Tobias Ellwood: Let me follow the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) on Kyoto. All the efforts that we make in this country pale into insignificance when China, India and the United States create 2.7 billion tonnes of carbon emissions compared with the 483 million tonnes that all the Kyoto countries put together produce. What exactly is the Minister doing to get those countries on board? If he cannot do that, all our efforts, whether they are bicycles or wind farms, are a complete joke.

Elliot Morley: Yes, I shall be very glad to do that. In fact, I intend to cover those points in my speech, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will listen carefully to what I have to say. I have just acknowledged that the UK accounts for 2 per cent. of global emissions. The EU, of which we are a member, accounts for about 24 per cent. However, if every country took the attitude that this problem is too difficult to tackle because the Americans are not doing anything and because China and India are producing huge emissions, we would never make any progress at all. This country is trying to take the lead in this area, and I am proud of that.

Paddy Tipping: Is not the Minister being too modest? Is it not a fact that the Prime Minister has recently had discussions with China and India, and that he has talked to the Russians about this? Is it not also the case that the next G8 summit, in St. Petersburg, is going to consider climate change? Finally, will my hon. Friend comment on the efforts that he and the Prime Minister have made to persuade the Russians to sign the Kyoto treaty? Those are strong arguments that counter the siren voices from the Conservative Benches.

Elliot Morley: As part of our commitments, the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met our Russian, Chinese and Indian counterparts. In fact, we have been advocating international action and trying to build international consensus for many years. I shall return to these points in a moment.

John Barrett: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I should like to make some progress.
	It would be for the benefit of the House if I outlined what measures the Government have put in place to deal with climate change. First, in regard to our domestic commitments, the Government introduced the climate change levy, which will have saved 3.7 million tonnes of carbon by 2010. The climate change agreements that go with the levy have already saved 4.6 million tonnes of carbon up to 2002. This Government introduced the world's first national carbon trading scheme. We also introduced company car tax reforms in 2004 that changed the whole focus on company cars, which account for the biggest share of the new car market. Instead of giving tax discounts on the number of miles travelled, we now give them according to a car's emissions. That represents a big change and it has had a big impact on sales.
	It was this Government who introduced a lower rate of vehicle excise duty for low-carbon vehicles, and who established the Carbon Trust to work with business to help it to reduce carbon emissions. We also established a target of obtaining 10 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources by 2010, and introduced the renewable energy obligation certificates. We introduced the energy efficiency commitments—we are now moving into their third phase—which involve the energy companies helping their customers to achieve energy efficiency. We have also recently announced that we are to introduce a renewable transport fuel obligation, which is designed to save more than 1 million tonnes of carbon a year. That proposal has been warmly welcomed.
	We are one of the few major industrial countries that is on track to meet its Kyoto targets, and we have now achieved a 12.5 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. We are, I understand, the first Government in the world to take a decision to offset all Government air travel from April next year. We have already offset all the air travel involved in travelling to our G8 conferences, and we have used the money from that to invest in a clean development mechanism scheme in Cape Town in South Africa. I believe that we are unique among Governments internationally in that regard.
	This Government have also set up a review of the economics of climate change, which is important in regard to dealing with its impact on gross domestic product, the potential benefits, and the cost of doing nothing about climate change. We have also brought forward proposals from the Commission under our EU presidency to include aviation in the European carbon trading scheme.

Nick Hurd: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: Those are just the domestic issues, and I want to go on to the international issues, but I am happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Nick Hurd: One of the stated ambitions of this Government's presidency was to advance the inclusion of aviation into the next round of emissions trading. Will the Minister update the House on exactly what progress they have made, as of the end of this month?

Elliot Morley: As of the end of this month, the proposals have come forward from the Commission and they are on the agenda of the December Environment Council, at which we hope to reach agreement with the Council to take the necessary steps to include aviation in the EU scheme post-2008. That is the earliest that it could be done because of the procedures that have to be followed in the European Parliament.

Michael Weir: The Minister missed out the Energy Act 2004 from his long list. It introduced measures relating to renewable energy and to the capping charges for renewable transmission from Scotland. That has largely been undermined by the transmission charging regime recommended by Ofgem. I know that the Minister's colleague in the Department of Trade and Industry, the Minister for Energy, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Malcolm Wicks), has announced a change for the island areas, but no change has been made in the highland areas of Scotland. Will the Minister tell us whether such a change is under consideration?

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman should be aware that measures have been put in place to support hydro energy in the Scottish highlands. That would also have the effect of reducing transmission costs because of a small increase across the whole of the national grid, which would benefit the people in remote Scottish areas. I am sure that he will appreciate the Government's taking those measures.

Peter Ainsworth: In the Minister's long list of the Government's efforts—[Hon Members: "And achievements."] Well, some achievements. The point that the Minister made was that the Government had succeeded in mitigating what would otherwise have been a bigger problem. However, in the spirit of co-operation that we are trying to achieve this evening, I should like to say that I believe that the Government are trying hard on this issue. The fact that they are not succeeding as fast or as much as we would like is due to the fact that this is a really difficult problem to solve, domestically and internationally. The Minister has accepted the need for international co-operation, through which all of us on the planet can make progress. It is sad, however, that he saw fit to table his amendment to the Opposition's motion, and I would like him to explain why he felt that that was necessary. Does he not think that it sends out the wrong message to people who are seriously looking for political consensus and leadership on this crucial issue?

Elliot Morley: As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and I intend to address it. I understand the argument for consensus. However, just as he wished to ask a number of questions about the Prime Minister's view, I need to ask a number of questions about where the Opposition stand on certain issues. If we are to explore these issues, we must also explore the disagreements. I would ask him to read the amendment carefully—he will see that it is written in a way that leaves open the option of working together and of treating the proposals on this serious international problem in serious and mature manner.

William McCrea: I accept that the Government are earnestly and genuinely trying to make achievements on climate change. May I ask the Minister, however, what the special relationship between our Prime Minister and President Bush has achieved in regard to making significant changes in the American stance on climate change?

Elliot Morley: I believe that there have been changes in the American stance—an example is the outcome of the Gleneagles agreement. A bottom-up approach is being taken in parts of the United States, involving certain states, cities and even major American companies such as General Electric and DuPont, arguing for a framework of emissions reduction. That there are changes taking place was also reflected in a recent vote in the Senate. To be honest, I would not have expected to see such a vote even two years ago. Some of the changes have been as a result of our engagement—although not only that of the UK—with the Americans at all levels, not just with the federal Government, but with individual states. I recently attended a conference promoted by the Climate Group, which is a voluntary group consisting of American and Australian states, British companies and a range of international companies, all of which want to go further and faster than their Governments are doing. We have encouraged and supported them because we want to work at all levels.

Patrick Hall: Will the Minister give way?

Elliot Morley: I should like to make some progress.
	At this point, it is worth saying a few words about what we have done in relation to our international engagement. Just as we are proud of the progress that we have made domestically, we are proud of what we have done in terms of global leadership. Making climate change one of the two key themes for the G8 focused attention on it, and the Gleneagles summit agreed on a package of measures to combat the problem, together with a new dialogue between G8 countries and emerging economies such as China and India and a statement on the importance of climate change.
	The first meeting on the dialogue was held in London on 1 November. Significantly, it was attended not just by the G8 countries, but by the five big emerging economies: India, China, Brazil, Mexico and South Africa. That is an example of the use of our facilities and influence to build an international consensus and to establish how we can work together to deal with some of the requirements of countries such as China and India.
	The round table for G8 Energy and Environment Ministers was the first of its kind and was very successful. We hosted a major international science conference at the Hadley centre in February, which informed some of the sceptics—who, I am glad to say, are becoming fewer and fewer—about the science of climate change. Under our EU presidency, we held an informal Agriculture and Environment Ministers' council on climate change. Such a council had never been convened before. Under our presidency, an EU-China summit was held that led to an agreement with China on the pioneering and developing of clean coal technology. Of course, the Chinese will use their coal because they have huge coal reserves. Then there was the EU-India agreement. We talked to India about renewables and about the possibility of co-operating with India on, in particular, the clean development mechanism. There was also an EU-Russia agreement, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping). It was agreed that Russia should become the next president of the G8 and that energy efficiency would become one of its key themes. We have been involved in important international work.

Cheryl Gillan: I understand that earth observation and environmental monitoring were important subjects at the G8 summit and that the UK emphasised their importance. A decision on the global monitoring for environment and security satellite is due in December, and DEFRA is the lead Department when it comes to that important decision at the ministerial meeting on the European Space Agency. Rumour has it that the UK will put in a paltry £2 million, although we really need to put in £11 million if we are to hold our own in the international community. If the rumour is correct, will the Minister immediately go back to the Department and think about investing the £11 million that British industry and the sector really need?

Elliot Morley: We certainly need to invest in monitoring technologies. We were involved recently in support for the satellite that was designed to monitor the decline of ice sheets in the Arctic. Unfortunately, that satellite came to a premature end, but I will look into the hon. Lady's serious point and write to her.

Adam Afriyie: As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I welcome much of what the Minister has said, especially about carbon sequestration and international co-operation. I am a bit puzzled, however. Our motion states:
	"That this House endorses the principle of a cross-party consensus on carbon reduction."
	I cannot see the Minister's problem with it. Perhaps he will explain.

Elliot Morley: I will, if I am given the chance.

Joan Walley: We have been talking about consensus in the House and in the UK, and about the Government's work in terms of leadership to secure international consensus. In the light of all the good work that the Government have done and the leadership shown by the Department and the Prime Minister, will my hon. Friend give us an idea of the international agreement that he hopes will emerge when the Kyoto agreement needs to be replaced? When we speak of international consensus, the question of the successor to Kyoto must be the most pressing issue.

Elliot Morley: We certainly want an effective second phase following Kyoto. I think that it should include targets, but I also think that we should take a sensitive approach to its application, especially in regard to countries that are not obliged to adopt targets. We should consider how we can persuade those countries to become involved in the reduction of emissions.

Patrick Hall: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Elliot Morley: I will, but after that I shall make some progress because I know that others wish to speak.

Patrick Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that no country will take these issues seriously unless the whole world is convinced that it is possible to combine economic growth with tackling climate change? Although we must not be complacent, it should be borne in mind that during the period in which we reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 12.5 per cent., the UK economy grew by well over 30 per cent. That suggests that it is possible to combine two processes, so we are well placed to urge others to take such issues seriously and drive the political will.

Elliot Morley: It is true that ours has been one of the strongest rates of economic growth in Europe, and I think that we can demonstrate that we have reduced emissions during that period of economic growth. I do not accept the argument that reductions in emissions and economic growth cannot be achieved at the same time. Of course there are implications to be addressed, and some have asked why we should act when our emissions are so much smaller than those of other countries, but action on climate change promotes energy efficiency, new technology, productivity and a whole new sector of energy industries. We should not be afraid to say as much, and as a country we are not.

John Barrett: Do not figures released last week by the World Health Organisation provide one of the strongest reasons for action? According to those figures, 150,000 fatalities and 5 million diseases a year are directly linked to the increasing temperature on the planet.

Elliot Morley: I entirely agree. Global warming has a number of severe implications, and the spread of disease is one of them. Others are desertification, water problems, difficulties with crops, rising sea levels and storm intensity. The more scientific papers I read and the more I learn about such issues, the more concerned I am about climate change and the more convinced I am of the need to take action.
	As I have said, I welcome consensus on what is an important global issue. Understandably, we have our political disagreements, but there is an enormous amount of consensus and co-operation between all parties in Committees, including Select Committees. We should not be ashamed of that, or worry about it—it is right and proper. However, let me say this to the right hon. Member for West Dorset—and I intend to answer his questions. He talks of year-on-year reductions, but where are his policies? How will he achieve those reductions? What taxes will he raise? What measures will he introduce? I welcome his thoughts and his suggestions, but this is the second debate that we have had on this subject, and so far we have heard nothing about what he and his party intend to do. Consensus requires a measure of agreement on the politics involved.
	We have some disagreements with the right hon. Gentleman on climate change. He knows what they are, but I shall remind him of them nevertheless. We strongly disagree with the Conservative party's opposition to wind energy because wind is an important aspect of renewables. Other renewables are coming on-stream and we are encouraging that, but about 70 per cent. of renewable energy will come from wind. The right hon. Gentleman's party is opposing the development of wind farms wherever they are proposed, and it must be said that the Liberal Democrats are not much better in that regard. If that continues, we shall never make any progress.

Oliver Letwin: The Minister must know that we are not opposed to wind energy. As a matter of fact and as I said earlier, we are not opposed to any particular form of energy. Each form of energy poses constraints and problems, and it has to be looked at case by case. Of course we are in favour of allowing local communities a degree of discretion to decide where these things are suitable and where they are not, but that is not the same as being opposed to wind energy. The Minister's own Government support a system of planning precisely because they accept that there are such constraints. I do not believe that there is much between us on wind energy and certainly not enough to justify not having a consensus on the overall framework.

Elliot Morley: The problem is that there may not be much between myself and the right hon. Gentleman, but in a debate on wind energy that was initiated by the official Opposition, some Conservative Front-Bench Members frankly painted a picture of wind energy as generally akin to supping with the devil or having the anti-Christ on our fields. I am not quite clear whether that is the right hon. Gentleman's or his party's position, but it certainly needs to be clarified. The right hon. Gentleman also supports the scrapping of the climate change levy, but it has made an enormous contribution to reducing energy consumption in this country and we do not see how scrapping that levy makes a contribution to fighting climate change. Finally, although I do not levy the charge against the right hon. Gentleman, who I have not heard commenting on the matter, every time that there is a dispute about fuel prices and we have demonstrators on the streets, official Conservative spokespeople jump on the bandwagon and demand that the Government cave in immediately to the demonstrators by cutting fuel duty and fuel taxes. Again, that is not an area of consensus between us.

Peter Ainsworth: The point about the fuel protest illustrates precisely why we need cross-party collaboration on these issues—in order to prevent that sort of opportunism, which any Opposition party will be tempted to engage in when life gets tough. There will have to be tough decisions. However, the Minister has illustrated exactly why he should support my right hon. Friend's motion this evening.

Elliot Morley: I have no doubt about the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman's views on these issues, but the problem is that I have no idea where the official Opposition stand on the issue of fuel duty—and I would like to know.
	Speculating about the Prime Minister's comments provides another problem. The right hon. Member for West Dorset claims to be seeking a consensus, but he did not properly read what the Prime Minister has written, spelling out where he stands on all these issues. The Prime Minister's views were more than clarified in the recent article in The Independent, which I highly recommend to all Members who want to know where the Prime Minister stands on targets and binding commitments. It is all spelled out in great detail. The right hon. Gentleman read that article, but was still keen to quote not what the Prime Minister said, but what people who claimed to be saying what the Prime Minister said—because it suited their particular agenda. We have to do better than that. Rather than ignoring fact and repeating fantasies, people who want clarification are free to ask for it. That is the spirit of consensus. If people ask for clarification, the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friends and I will be only too happy to provide it.
	I accept the need for a stable framework that is not affected by political changes. Our progress on carbon reduction is now independently audited by the National Audit Office, as well as the United Nations forum on climate change. We already have independent bodies that monitor what we are doing in respect of emissions and progress. Nothing is to be gained from what the right hon. Gentleman proposes, even though I am not particularly against it, because we already have it. Let me make it clear that we are always happy to give credit to people who make real contributions and real progress. It is important to realise that we as a Government cannot achieve progress in climate change alone. We need support from local authorities and civil society, and we need backing from our scientists and international support. Yes, we also need political support in respect of achieving a consensus.
	As to what the right hon. Member for West Dorset said tonight, no one has said that Kyoto is dead. The Prime Minister played a key role in getting Kyoto in place and is committed to it. We have to face reality in respect of the views of India and China, which has influenced some of the Prime Minister's comments, but what he said about India and China has sometimes erroneously been applied to the UK. There are real difficulties in turning around the current trend of emissions, but I believe that it can be done. It is false to claim that it is an argument about technology versus targets; we need both. This country has demonstrated real progress in tackling climate change and we have provided a real international lead.
	In conclusion, I invite the right hon. Gentleman to read the amendment that we tabled today. If he does, he will see that it embraces proposals to give the Opposition the opportunity to judge that the Government have real policies on climate change and that they are committed to them. I am afraid that the Opposition have often been opportunist in the past and it is important that they are not seen merely to be backing empty gestures. Our amendment leaves the door open. If the right hon. Gentleman is serious about a consensus, I invite him to withdraw his motion and support our amendment.

Norman Baker: I am certainly serious about achieving consensus, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I believe that the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is, too.
	My first question is whether the threat from climate change is serious. The answer is manifestly so—and it is judged to be so by probably every hon. Member in the House, by the Government's chief scientist and by 99.5 per cent. of scientists. The number is increasing all the time. Is climate change becoming increasingly serious? Yes, it is, and evidence from the last six months has been frightening, as the figures supplied by scientists are proving to be underestimates of the speed at which climate change is kicking in, and underestimates of its impact on developing countries and, indeed, on our own shores. The matter is becoming more rather than less serious and at a faster rate of knots than ever before.
	My second question is whether sufficient progress is being made both internationally and domestically to limit greenhouse gas emissions. I fear that the answer is manifestly no. I am aware that the Government have taken steps this year to ensure that the issue is put firmly on the international agenda and I acknowledge that some progress has been made. I particularly welcome the sensible engagement with China and India and I also welcome the review on the economics of climate change, which will go a long way towards establishing the cost of doing nothing and the cost of doing something. It will enable us to present to other countries the facts of the matter as we have put them together and hopefully bring about some international consensus on what actions need to be taken. So to be honest, in most respects—bar one, which I shall mention now—I doubt whether the Government could have done much more internationally.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: I know that we are striving for consensus this evening, but if the Liberal Democrats are so interested in reducing greenhouse gas emissions, why did Liberal Democrats in my constituency vote against the congestion charge, and why, extraordinarily, are they against creating bus lanes to support our new park and ride?

Norman Baker: I am sorry that I gave way to that intervention. I do not know the facts of the situation that the hon. Lady describes, so I will not comment on it. This is not about pretending that one party is whiter than white—or greener than green—or that every other party is faulty in all respects. That is the old politics, and the right hon. Member for West Dorset and I are trying to get away from it, rather than encourage it. I hope that the hon. Lady will take my response in the constructive spirit in which it is intended.
	On international negotiations, the caveat that I want to outline for the Minister is one that I have mentioned before. The Prime Minister, with the best of intentions, is trying to bring President Bush on board, as he should; but I caution him against paying too high a price to get a piece of paper signed by the President. The concern has been expressed—the right hon. Member for West Dorset raised it earlier, as have others—that over the summer and in September, the Prime Minister showed signs of wavering in his commitment to targets. He undoubtedly did show such signs, but as the Minister rightly says, an article in The Independent has hopefully put that fear to bed. If the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has managed to bring the Prime Minister back on board, that is all to the good, but international agreement cannot be achieved at any price. If it is achieved through signing a piece of paper, that piece of paper will not be worth having.
	Of course we want the US Administration on board, and the way to get them on board is to strengthen the commitment within the US to tackling climate change. We can do that by standing firm in the European Union and elsewhere; by supporting the north-eastern American states that have emissions trading schemes; by supporting Senator John McCain, who is pushing such issues within the Republican movement; and by supporting Arnold Schwarzenegger and the 130 mayors who have signed an agreement. I again caution the Minister and the Prime Minister that getting President Bush to sign a worthless piece of paper will not achieve our aims.
	Have we taken sufficient action domestically? No, we have not. The Minister read out a list of the Government's actions and, in some regards, achievements. I happily confess that some achievements have been recorded, and I welcome them. I am bound to say, however, without being churlish, that most of them date from the early part of the Government's tenure, rather than the later part. Nevertheless, those achievements are significant and might not otherwise have occurred, so I welcome that so far as it goes, but the reality is that there is a lot more to do.
	Carbon emissions are increasing. Indeed, in the past two or three years, they have increased by 3 per cent. compared with 1997 levels, and there is no indication that they are slowing down. In answer to my recent parliamentary question, the Minister said—extrapolating the most recent figures—that we could miss our Kyoto targets for the next four or five years. I am not saying that we are going to miss them, but that threat is there. I do not want us to miss them and nor does the Minister; that is why we are collectively trying to find a way of ensuring that they are met, and surpassed as far as possible.
	Why have we not achieved our domestic goals? There are a number of reasons why, one of which is that it is sometimes difficult for the Government to take the decisions that they know are necessary, because they fear the political consequences of doing so. Fuel duty was certainly a case in point. In 2000, the pressure from fuel protesters was enormous.

Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman will doubtless agree that the longer Governments go on putting off difficult decisions, the harder those decisions are when they eventually have to be taken.

Norman Baker: Indeed, and we would rather give the Government a soft landing than a hard one.
	That leads me to aviation—an issue that the Government have yet to grasp because they are concerned about the political consequences of doing so. They want to enter into the European emissions trading scheme in respect of aviation; so do we, and so do the Conservatives, so there is consensus on this issue. But I do not regard that as sufficient. Further action has to be taken, as the Minister probably admits privately. The reality, however, is that he and his colleagues will be reluctant to go further in case the national papers produce headlines such as, "Government hit airline travellers", or "Blair puts £25 on your air ticket". Of course the Minister is concerned about that; he is a politician and he is worried about the consequences of such an initiative. But we are trying to give the Government a mechanism for taking decisions that they, and we, know may be necessary, but which are politically difficult for them to take.

Elliot Morley: Of course we, as politicians, have to take into account certain consequences, but it is not simply a question of that so far as aviation taxes are concerned. The question is: what is the most effective fiscal measure? Some charter airlines have imposed a £20 fuel surcharge, but it has had not the slightest effect on passenger numbers. I do not doubt that, theoretically, people could be priced out of the market, but rationing travel on the basis of who is rich enough to pay for pollution does not accord with social equity.

Norman Baker: I did not suggest that, in fact, and the Minister should listen more carefully. A number of mechanisms are possible—ending the "single till" approach to airline pricing, implementing an emissions charge, or reforming airport passenger duty. Various options are available, and they might add to the Government's armoury when it comes to tackling the effect of aviation on climate change.

Colin Challen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that many of the taxes proposed to deal with carbon emissions would be rather regressive and hit poorer people harder than others? In that context, does he support the concept of domestic tradable quotas, the subject of my private Member's Bill last year? Under the system, which offers a way to deal with the problem in a progressive manner, people have a carbon cap and are allowed to trade their carbon allocations.

Norman Baker: That concept makes up the fifth point in my five-point speech, so I will bring it forward. I agree that tradable quotas do offer a way to move matters on. It has the attraction of being liberal—with both a small "l" and a big "L"—in that it allows people to limit carbon emissions by their personal actions. It gives them choices, and at the same time information about what those choices are.
	For example, the system means that people would be given information on their airline tickets about the number of rail journeys that would be equivalent to their flight. Deductions from their carbon emissions allowances would be made to cover their airline journey, with the result that they might have to buy more allowances from someone else further down the line. Under those circumstances, people might choose to travel by rail, but they would do so having had access to the relevant information. They would have the freedom to make their own choices about how they travel.

Colin Challen: It was remiss of me not to congratulate the hon. Gentleman also on signing up to the 25-5 challenge, by which he aims to reduce his personal carbon emissions by the year 2010.

Norman Baker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I have taken drastic action in that respect, although it is proving difficult to make further cuts. However, I shall do my best to live up to the challenge.
	The empowerment of individuals generally is important. Personal carbon allowances are one option, but the personal production of energy is another. Why do we have to have an energy system based on huge units—nuclear or coal-fired power stations, or even wind farms—that are situated miles away from centres of population? Why not have decentralised energy, so that people can have a say about what they use? That was the burden of the private Member's Bill introduced last year by the hon. Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen). Such a system would allow people to sell excess energy to the grid and it would also offer security of supply, as people with wind turbines on their houses are not liable to be cut off.

Boris Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman say who would distribute the personal carbon allowances? What would be the penalties for failure to comply?

Norman Baker: The honest answer is that there is a lot more work to do on the proposal. We are moving towards taking radical measures to tackle climate change. A number of economists have suggested the carbon allowances approach: implementing the allowances could be achieved in a variety of ways, but none of them is particularly easy. My suggestion is that we could start with the transport sector, which is self-contained and could be ring-fenced. However, if the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we have solutions that we can distribute around the House, the answer is no, we have not.
	Another reason why too little is being done about climate change is that it is not high enough up the political agenda. By our actions, we are trying to correct that. We could do with some help from the media—a point that I regularly make—which insist on treating climate change, if they deal with it at all, as a purely scientific matter. They give the impression that no politicians of any party, including those in the Government, have anything to say about it. I, for one, am fed up with reports on the "Today" programme or stories in the broadsheets that go into great detail about horrendous and apocalyptic things going on in the world but which contain no comment from any politician. That means that no Minister is put on the spot and asked what is being done about the subject of the story, and the opinions of Members of Parliament are not sought either. Such stories and reports exist in a vacuum, outside the political process, so it is not surprising that politicians do not make progress on environmental matters. I hope that the media will reform their approach to these things.
	What should we do about policies that, collectively, are failing to deliver domestically the reaction to climate change that we need? The motion has been tabled by both Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members, and follows on from earlier debates and initiatives undertaken by myself and the right hon. Member for West Dorset. It wants to deal with the problem of climate change by putting it higher on the agenda, and telling the media that the story is political as well as simply scientific. It is designed to make it easier for the Minister and the good guys in government to argue with people who are perhaps less enlightened in other Departments, such as the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I hope that it will also help the Government to take difficult decisions in the knowledge that they will not be exploited for narrow party reasons.
	That is how the motion attempts to help the Government. I want action on climate change, and I want the problem to be tackled. That is one of the reasons why I am in politics. I am trying to make it easier for the Government to take the right decisions. That is what we are collectively trying to do.

Michael Connarty: Only one Opposition Member has mentioned the biggest contribution we could make on climate change—nuclear power. The Liberals have a principled opposition to nuclear power, but countries such as China and South Africa are going nuclear, even though they have massive coal stocks, because they realise that nuclear is the cleanest form of power.

Norman Baker: I do not agree that it is the cleanest source, and we could have a long debate about nuclear energy—as we doubtless will in due course. It is not for this country to dictate to others the choices they make in energy supply, but I am convinced that we can deliver security of supply and meet our energy demands through renewable sources, energy efficiency and cleaned up fossil fuel.
	We will have the argument about nuclear power later, but that subject brings me to the issue of consensus. Last time we had a debate on climate change, I was asked how I could possibly want to do business with the Conservatives when their position on the climate change levy is so dreadful. Indeed, the Minister mentioned that today. Let me make it plain. I do not share all the Conservatives' views on the environment, and they do not share mine or those of my colleagues. That is not a requirement. We are not entering a coalition or seeking to agree every dot and comma for a joint Administration. We are setting off down the road and seeing how far we can get with a common policy. At some point, we will fork off and go in different directions—[Interruption.] I said, "Fork off"! However, it makes sense to go as far down the road together as we can—and I include the Government—instead of picking on differences and saying, "Well, you're in a different party so we are going to find a reason to disagree with you. We will pick some council that has done something unhelpful and make an issue of that, instead of trying to address the issues of climate change." That is not the response that members of the public want to hear. They want a proper, concerted response that proves that MPs are taking climate change seriously. That requires a different approach from us.
	The Government should not be defensive on this matter. They should not feel that they always have to engage in normal, adversarial politics. They should not feel that they would be weakened by engaging with Opposition parties to find a consensus on climate change. The Minister, who cares about these matters, will find that liberating.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a 10-minute limit on speeches from now on, but several hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, many of whom are likely to be disappointed. It would be helpful if some Members could take less than their allotted span.

Colin Challen: I hope to reduce my emissions this evening as much as possible. I shall start by reiterating two requests. The first is that we do not have a Division this evening. It would not serve any useful purpose and most of us agree with most of what is on the Order Paper without sending the wrong signal to people outside. The issue is the subject of intense debate and we are seriously looking for consensus. Much common ground has been covered this evening, and that is welcome.
	I chair the all-party group on climate change, which has members from both sides of the House, including the smaller parties. I have referred to the 25–5 challenge, and if any Members who have not signed up would like to do so, they can see me afterwards. The challenge involves trying to reduce one's personal carbon emissions by 25 per cent. in five years—by 2010. That will send out a signal to our constituents, and other people who may be role models in society, that we are doing something and not simply making speeches and asking others to do things that we are not prepared to do. Although there has been much common ground, the all-party group is about to launch an inquiry into whether cross-party consensus is possible or desirable—a suggestion that, coincidentally, appears in the motion.
	Having thought about the subject, I think that such consensus is both possible and desirable, although some people may say that it is not possible and we have heard a few of the reasons this evening.

John Barrett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are well on the way to all-party consensus, as those parties that have already agreed to it represented about 65 per cent. of the electorate at the last election?

Colin Challen: That is possible. But when I wake up in the morning and listen to John Humphrys interviewing different Front-Bench spokespeople, I often want to go back to sleep again. Sometimes I would rather that the Front-Bench spokespeople agreed with each other and that John Humphrys found somebody else to intimidate.
	Is cross-party consensus desirable? We should consider what that means for collective responsibility. We may not agree on nuclear power as a solution—that is quite possible, as we shall probably soon find out. However, if we appear to disagree on climate change, that sends out damaging signals. People might say that the Opposition wanted consensus because they wanted to get their hands on the decision-making process without collective responsibility.
	In Denmark, after a long consensual process, all the parties, both in and outside government, signed up in July to about eight measures to reduce energy use and improve energy efficiency. I realise that the Danish electoral system is different from ours, which produces different results, but at least the Danes were able to agree positively on those measures. We should consider emulating that approach.
	Another example, although not one that I particularly favour, is offered by Finland, which recently agreed to go ahead with its fifth nuclear reactor. In the 1990s, the Finnish Parliament rejected that option, but a couple of years ago a free vote was marginally in favour of the nuclear option. However, despite cross-party consensus and a free vote, the Greens left the Government.
	The "stop climate chaos" initiative is building consensus between development and environmental non-governmental organisations. I hope that shortly there will be an initiative in the House so that all the party groups can work together to parallel and reflect what is happening outside in civil society. Perhaps we could develop the same sort of consensus that produced "Make Poverty History". Indeed, it is crucial that we doso. "Make Poverty History" is marginally less important as an all-embracing issue than climate change, although they have an impact on one another.
	Earlier this autumn, I was looking for consensus between the party leaders. What better place to start than their conference speeches? Members may recall that this year we heard nine leadership speeches at three party conferences. If anyone wants to read the efforts of all the leadership contenders, they are available in the handy little publication that I have produced, entitled "Carbon 2 Share".
	Sadly, climate change was completely absent from the speeches of some of the leadership contenders of one party. I am pleased that one of the leading contenders for the Conservative party crown has now come out with some sensible ideas, such as independent carbon accounting and auditing—described as a model based on the Monetary Policy Committee. A question was put earlier about whether domestic tradable quotas would require penalties. An independent source of information on carbon counting and how the system works would have more credibility and engage people much more.
	I hope that the inquiry of the all-party group on climate change will take place early in the new year. It will pose serious questions about how we should proceed, and about the obstacles. A few years ago, the Prime Minister and leading individuals from the other parties came together to form a cross-party consensus on the euro, and it was a fiasco. It went nowhere. That is an example of consensus going wrong. In Sweden, there was cross-party consensus on that subject, and consensus among the media, including broadcasters, and the people rejected it. In fact it was anticipated that they would reject it, despite the great sense that the establishment supported it. We must ask profound questions, such as whether people might feel that this consensus was a politicians' artifice, created to hoodwink them into actions that they did not agree with. It is possible that domestic tradable quotas could be such a thing.
	I want to finish by saying that I am not getting Bill crazy, but tomorrow I shall present a Bill. It will be launched officially on Thursday in Committee Room 6 at 1 o'clock, and Aubrey Meyer, director of the Global Commons Institute, will be present. The Bill will be called the Climate Change (Contraction and Convergence) Bill, and it is the other half of the Domestic Tradable Quotas (Carbon Emissions) Bill. This is the international framework that has been proposed to frame all of our considerations, and consensus, and negotiations. It is what is called a full-term framework because it covers the entire process. It is not just about setting one target for next year and one for 10 years' time, and keeping our fingers crossed that we shall be able to deliver, perhaps as a result of a piece of technology. Instead, we shall be able to benchmark what we do against the contraction and convergence model. It will demand of us all quite an effort to achieve that kind of thing in the international negotiations that we face.
	There is an analogy with early Christendom. What would have happened if the early Christians had gone to Rome and said, "We are not going to bring down the Roman empire, or even change the views of the emperor"—I think we know who the emperor is in the present-day world—"so let's just give up. Let's pack it in, because we cannot change their opinions; we shall just get tossed to the lions"? They did not stop because of that argument.
	John Smith said that even if a country cannot achieve its international consensus, it should lead by example. I think that we should lead by example because if we do not, personally, nationally and internationally, nobody will believe that we mean what we say. Contraction and convergence is the only workable model. I have looked at all 40 of the models that the Minister mentioned in a recent debate—40 models that were provided by the Pew centre in its report. Some of those are simply a reading of the literature, extracted from an academic journal, and are not really models at all.
	Contraction and convergence is fully worked out. It is comprehensive. It has the flexibilities—it allows for trading. It also meets the objections that the Byrd-Hagel resolution posed, back in the time when Kyoto was being negotiated, for any President—Clinton or Bush and any successor. The Byrd-Hagel resolution in the Senate said that the United States should not enter into an agreement that did not involve all countries. That was the sense of it. It was an agreement not simply for the developing world, but for all countries, including the   developing ones. More recently, the McCain-Lieberman state of the Senate resolution has moved the debate on, albeit with less of a majority than the Byrd-Hagel resolution.
	Contraction and convergence can meet the objections. It is a logic that we are not really seeking to avoid. "Contraction" means that we shall reduce our carbon emissions to the recommended levels: a 60 per cent. reduction on today's emissions by 2050. In fact—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think the hon. Gentleman has met his target.

Boris Johnson: The Minister has been rather hard on the Opposition for failing to come up with a practical policy proposal about which the House could form a consensus tonight. He is being very unfair on my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). None the less, I am going to provide a single policy initiative, which I am sure will meet universal approval among Labour Members and my hon. Friends. It would save money for people on low incomes, cut pointless bureaucracy, reduce the burdens on local councils and, of course, reduce carbon emissions, and in doing so, supply not just hot air but hot water and, indeed, central heating.
	We all know that one of the major causes of CO 2 in the atmosphere is household emissions—far bigger than vehicle emissions—and 75 per cent. of those emissions comes from heating and boilers. We now come to a peculiarity, and I want to use the debate to draw it to the Minister's attention in the hope that he can clear it up tonight. It would be a wonderful thing if he did so. He might like to come with me to the lovely village of Sonning Common—one of the largest villages in south Oxfordshire—and if he would be so kind as to come, he would see a large estate full of semi-detached houses built in the 1960s, with an attractive array of south-facing roofs. Mrs. Ann Anley, who lives in one of those houses, has written to me to explain that she has a plan, which I am sure that the Minister and, indeed, all hon. Members would support.
	For an outlay of £3,000, Mrs. Anley can add to her roof a wonderful panel by which she can heat her water. It is a photovoltaic pump. I do not know the exact technical details. The Ministers is nodding sagely; he knows of what I am about to speak. It is a wonderful thing. She assures me—I have no reason to doubt her, since I have taken the trouble to look up her plans on the internet—that she can reduce her carbon emissions by half a tonne of CO 2 a year and that she can supply up to 70 per cent. of her hot water needs in doing so. It is a good thing that the installation is subsidised by the Government—the Minister is nodding again—to the tune of £400. We all support that. The kicker is that she has to get planning permission. I refer back to the very prescient words of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, who pointed to the absurdity of having to get planning permission to install a small windmill on a roof.

Nia Griffith: On Friday 11 November, time ran out for the Management of Energy in Buildings Bill precisely because of the determination of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), ably aided and abetted by the hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mr. Harper), who did their utmost to talk out that Bill. I should like to ask the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) if he can explain that sabotage by two Conservative Members.

Boris Johnson: Henley.

Nia Griffith: To be fair to the hon. Gentleman, I meant the right hon. Member for West Dorset, because he was present for the debate and I assume that he will sum up. Am I right, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Lady is seeking to catch my eye later. Perhaps she has said enough for the time being, and the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) can respond to that.

Boris Johnson: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is precisely to address the point that she makes that I seek to build a cross-party consensus tonight on the very issue in hand. The problem is that this good lady—indeed, anyone who wants to do so—must get planning permission.

Elliot Morley: rose—

Boris Johnson: I think that the Minister is about to intervene to say that the need for planning permission will be revoked on these questions.

Elliot Morley: The hon. Gentleman is on to a serious point. I understand that rooftop installations do not necessarily need planning permission, but there is confusion among local authorities about whether or not they do. I am glad to say that my hon. Friends in the Department of Trade and Industry have recently launched a consultation exercise on micro-generation that seeks to look at barriers to those devices. Part of that is intended to address the planning system to ensure that there are no anomalies.

Boris Johnson: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention because we are inching towards progress. I am tempted to say that he agrees with me, but I want to ram home the case a little further. To convince him, may I point out that the device that Mrs. Anley seeks to install is only 2 ft by 4 ft and only 8 cm thick, but to get planning permission, she must pay a non-negotiable flat fee of £135. She must then get an architectural artist to produce drawings of her house, which, as you will readily appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will push her costs well over £200. Everyone in the House will agree that it is complete madness on one hand to subsidise the project to the tune of £400, and on the other hand to force the good lady to spend more than £200.
	It is of no disrespect to the beautiful village of Sonning Common to say that not every house in it is an architectural gem beyond price. The estate in question, which I hope the Minister will visit with me, is not yet deemed to be a critical part of our national heritage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset has already pointed out, it is absurd that we allow houses throughout the country to sprout great Murdoch excrescences that pump trash into people's homes. Indeed, one can build the most extraordinary things with no planning permission whatever—I have done so myself—in the form of tree houses, sheds and heaven knows what, yet this single beneficial improvement to the lady's house is forbidden without planning permission.
	What do we do now? We do not content ourselves with the discussion process that the Minister outlined. I hope that he will tell the councils that he rightly says are in doubt what is allowed and what is not allowed. He should use all the plenipotentiary powers in his possession as Minister for whatever he is to indicate—I will read this out for the benefit of those who need to take it down—that class C under statutory instrument No. 418, the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, does not apply to solar panels. If councils remain in doubt, I hope that the Minister will use his good offices and all his influence to ensure that they are in doubt no longer.
	I have read some of the correspondence from councils, which are receiving more and more applications for solar panels because they are becoming more popular. I think that we can all agree that we should encourage them. The Minister himself said that this is not just a national or international question, but a question of our own individual actions and of taking our own initiative to reduce our carbon emissions. Addressing the matter would be a perfect way in which he could encourage and assist that. I very much hope that I have succeeded in my brief speech in forging the consensus that the Minister sought earlier on a single, practical policy. I look forward to hearing later that he is going to do a little bit more than set up a committee in the DTI to clarify matters, because this needs to be done urgently, and he is the man to do it.

Michael Meacher: It is widely accepted—the debate has confirmed it—that the Government so far have a pretty good record on climate change. We played a significant role in securing the Kyoto protocol in December 1997. We chaired the European Council in 1998 that produced agreement on the allocation of carbon reduction targets among all EU member states. We then produced a programme for countering climate change that was probably the most detailed and extensive of any country in the world. It is fair to say that we have been consistently proactive and effective in international negotiations to push the climate change agenda. We have been one of the only two or three countries in the EU on track to meet our Kyoto target by 2010—so far, so good. However, there appear recently to have been disturbing shifts in policy that I fear are beginning to undermine that excellent record, which is why I have been prompted to speak in the debate.
	A few months ago, British officials started lobbying in Brussels to try to persuade other EU countries that the successor regime to be implemented after Kyoto ends in 2012 should contain no targets or time scales. That is of course what President Bush wants, but it would defenestrate the entire global effort to stop and reverse global warming.
	Then, a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister stated at a private conference in New York that the way to deal with climate change was not through the Kyoto mechanisms, but by more research and development in improved technology, as has been referred to. In other words, it should be business as usual, but with more scientific ingenuity to try to lessen the catastrophic consequences. I profoundly disagree with that approach.
	If the world is to achieve the exceedingly exacting target of cutting greenhouse gas emissions not just by 5 per cent., as Kyoto requires, but by 60 per cent. by 2050, which scientists say is necessary to reverse global warming, a post-Kyoto international treaty that lacks targets, time scales and mechanisms is, to be honest, hardly worth the paper on which it is written. If that is the line that we are now taking as the presidency of the EU at the Montreal conference of parties, which is starting next week—I hope that I am wrong—it is a seriously retrograde step.
	We will never solve the problem through business as usual plus merely improved technology. Welcome and useful though that new technology may be, we will do so only if we remove the causes of climate change: the burning of fossil fuels. To those such as the Prime Minister who seem to fear that that will inhibit economic growth—there has been a good deal of discussion about that in this debate—I say that helping developing countries to do that via the clean-development mechanism, which was specifically put into the Kyoto protocol, will not dumb down economic growth. It will increase the opening up of vast new international markets for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
	That worrying shift in strategy—there have been some confusing signals, so I am not absolutely clear about the policy—is now beginning to seep into other more specific areas of policy. Over the summer, the national allocation plan targets that set out the carbon dioxide limits that are allowed for each industrial sector were increased by the Government, in one case above the levels already agreed by the EU Commission, as a result, of course, of industrial lobbying. I believe that I am right in saying that we are still intending to take the Commission to court in order to force it to accept that 3 per cent. increase. I hope that I am wrong, but if I am not, we should think about that again.
	The building of 250,000 new homes—this point has been made and I very much agree with it—in the south-east of England offers a great opportunity to ratchet up the low energy-efficiency standards in housing, but as far as I can see, so far it has not been taken up.
	The fastest rising cause of greenhouse gas emissions is of course transport, yet too little has been done to replace the fuel duty escalator, which was so abruptly dropped in the face of the lorry drivers' blockade of oil refineries in 2000. I know that some things have been done, but certainly not enough.
	Air travel, which may soon become the single biggest generator of greenhouse gases, is—let us be honest—being strongly promoted by the DTI. In addition, the Government heavily subsidise the airline industry—all Governments have done so—so that real-terms fares are falling year on year. The Government impose no tax on aviation fuel, which is a huge discrepancy when compared with the undoubtedly high tax on petrol for cars. They are now proposing a huge expansion of airports and a 300 to 500 per cent. increase in air travel in the next 30 years. All I can say is, fine, I know people want to do that, but I should like to be told how that is compatible with achieving a 60 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Now we are being told that the only way in which we can reach our Kyoto targets—

Boris Johnson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: I will, although I hope that it will be a serious intervention compared with the speech that the hon. Gentleman has just made.

Boris Johnson: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman does not therefore agree that planning permission should be revoked in the case of solar panels. Is he saying that that is a frivolous suggestion? On the point of air travel, I have had the pleasure of meeting him several times at airports—at Cagliari most recently. Is he seriously suggesting that people should give up their pleasure of holiday travel?

Michael Meacher: No one is saying that. No one is suggesting that people should give up their car or air travel. I am simply saying that the rate of expansion is incompatible with the requirements that scientists say we must meet if we are to achieve the targets to reduce climate change. We must find a way of reconciling what people want with what is absolutely necessary to stop climate change. I cannot give the answer today, but that is exactly what we need to examine.

Mark Pritchard: One way in which we could meet those targets is through the increased use of biofuels. Allscott, the British Sugar factory in my constituency, certainly wants to produce sugar beet for biofuels. Does the right hon. Gentleman think that we need more discussion of biofuels and greater demand for them?

Michael Meacher: The Government are looking seriously at the question of biofuels. Fuels containing 5.75 per cent. of biofuels are helpful to the workings of engines and are good for the environment, so I welcome the proposal.
	We have been told that the only way in which we can reach our Kyoto targets is through the renewal of civil nuclear power. Whatever the opinion of Sir David King, the chief scientific adviser, that is patently untrue. Our target is a reduction, as the Minister rightly said, of 12.5 per cent. by 2010. Even with recent slippages, largely because of the shift from gas back to coal, we are still on track to achieve at least a 14 per cent. reduction. However, we are not doing considerably better, as many of us would like, because of the reasons that I have spelled out and, importantly, because we have made glacial progress in promoting renewables. The Minister is nodding, and I am sure that he agrees with me.
	We fall well short of the 10 per cent. target for 2010. On current trends, we will fall well short of the 10,000 MW target for combined heat and power by 2010, and we have not made any commitment to the EU goal of 20 per cent. renewables by 2020. It has even been proposed—I hope that the Minister will say that this is wrong—that the funding support for the burgeoning solar industry should be largely withdrawn. The Prime Minister appears to be gearing up to renege on the energy White Paper of February 2003, which was produced by his own Government and proposed no new nuclear build and a major switch to renewables. He is doing so despite the enormous downsides of nuclear, which is more expensive than wind power, coal and gas and which, over the past 50 years, has accumulated taxpayer liabilities of no less than £56 billion according to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. It generates colossal amounts of waste—10,000 tonnes at present, and 0.5 million tonnes according to the Department of Trade and Industry at the end of the century—which Governments have tried, genuinely but fruitlessly, to dispose of. Nuclear plants create a major terrorist risk. They are surrounded in every case, studies show, by cancer and leukaemia clusters. The risk, however small—I am sure that it is very small—of a catastrophic nuclear accident can never be ruled out entirely.
	I am not seeking to knock nuclear, but simply wish to make the point that we do not need it. As an offshore island, we have enormous wind power capacity which we have not tapped. Experts, however, have calculated that it is sufficient to provide our entire electricity requirement four to six times over. We need to be much more determined in our pursuit of carbon reduction policies across the piece, and I shall end by suggesting a few.
	We should demand—I am sure this is what we want to do—that air travel be brought within the Kyoto protocol, from which it was excluded under American pressure in 1997. We should extend UK participation in the EU emissions trading scheme. It would certainly seem, from the leak of the Government's climate change review, which I have seen, that they are minded to do that, which is good. We should tighten building standards significantly in new build in order to achieve a major boost in energy efficiency, and we should—I do not know why we have not done this—reintroduce the excellent idea of standard assessment procedure ratings for all home sales.
	We should introduce innovative proposals to give people incentives for carbon reductions in transport. For example, there is the idea of a fee-bate, which entails giving people a rebate of, for example, £3,000 or £5,000 if they buy a car below, say, 1200 cc. The rebate would be paid for by a fee or charge of the same amount on the sale price if people buy a large gas guzzler. I shall stick my neck out as others have done in the debate, including my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen), who has honourably pursued the issue. To sensitise people to the way their activities may generate greenhouse gas emissions, we should consider the gradual introduction of domestic trading quotas. Of course—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has had his time.

Nick Hurd: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), whose credibility and sincerity in the matter are well known.
	The Government amendment asks us to congratulate them on the leadership that they have shown on climate change. It is ironic that in the same amendment they also   ask us to welcome the publication of a climate change programme review, which was set up in acknowledgement of the probability of failure—specifically, the failure to hit the 2010 carbon dioxide reduction target that is at the heart of that claim to effective leadership. The logic is tortuous. The more honest truth is that the global challenge of climate change faces a vacuum of credible leadership, not least with the imminent departure of the Prime Minister, at the very point when we reach a critical crossroad in the run-up to 2012 and the expiry of the Kyoto treaty.
	The issue remains riddled with uncertainties, both in terms of risk and the cost/benefits of alternative approaches to managing that risk. It is clear that we are living a dangerous experiment with current levels of carbon concentration in our atmosphere. We are at 381 parts per million and growing, according to Sir David King, at 2 parts per million per annum. We do not know what a safe level is. The working scientific assumption is 550 parts per million, which is thought to be compatible with an increase of 2° this century. Even if we could stabilise concentrations at 550 parts per million—and it remains a huge "if"—we face, in the words of Sir David King, very severe impacts around the world, leaving aside the impact on biodiversity.
	The scale and pace of these impacts are uncertain, but the message from the scientific community is that the risks are rising, not falling. The political response to the challenge to date has been the pursuit of international treaties to impose a top-down interventionist centralising solution. We should be honest and recognise that that has failed. Fifteen years of political effort went into producing the Rio agreement and the Kyoto treaty. They are milestones of a sort, but on a journey that has not taken us very far in controlling emissions or incentivising the technology breakthroughs that offer our best chance. They represent a vessel holed below the waterline by the absence of the big polluters—the USA and the emerging giants.
	In the absence of a lead from the superpower, Britain—Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair—has tried to take a lead but has found the going tough. The Prime Minister acknowledges that he is rethinking his international strategy. Although he inherited a healthy platform for showing Britain as a role model for how to cut emissions without sacrificing growth, emissions have risen since 1997. It seems that everything, including climate change policy and energy policy, is up for review again, and the non-governmental organisations are lining up to express their disappointment and frustration.
	Where do we go from here? First, we must take stock of the priorities. As has been pointed out in numerous interventions from the Opposition Benches, the most urgent priority must be to minimise the carbon intensity of industrial development in China, India and Brazil. If we do not, we will find ourselves locked quickly into an even higher level of carbon concentrations. The solution, as the Prime Minister knows, lies in technology. That technology is increasingly available, whether it be micro-generation, solar, wind or new generation nuclear power, clean coal or hybrid cars, but it is relatively expensive.

Colin Challen: The hon. Gentleman and I both serve on the Environmental Audit Committee. Sir David King told us last week that the target for reductions by 2050 is closer to 80 per cent. than 60 per cent., which shows us that the task is urgent. Does he agree that the necessary technologies must be brought on stream now and not in 10 or 15 years' time?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman has anticipated my second point, which is key: how can we accelerate the development and deployment of those technologies to make them more affordable? Why should we expect countries such as China to pay a premium for their basic infrastructure as they develop? The response of Governments must surely focus on this question: what can we do to accelerate the deployment, development and sharing of technology? That makes not only environmental sense, but commercial sense, because it is in our interests to grow those markets, which is a point that is not lost on the French. I did not hear anything in the Minister's remarks to suggest that the Government are any clearer on how to accelerate and share the technology.
	As has been said, a further priority must be to establish a framework for an agreement post-2012, which is do-able and would bind the big polluters into a common objective. As most people know, the challenge lies in reconciling the objectives of countries at different stages of development, and there is no shortage of ideas on the table—for example, the ideas set out by the international climate change taskforce make good reading.
	The Government are going to Montreal in two weeks' time to open negotiations, but this House knows nothing of what is in their mind. It would be so much more effective if Ministers went to that conference having established a consensus. At the moment, the situation is a complete mystery, possibly even to them.
	My third point does not come up often enough in these debates. An urgent priority for Governments must be to support a sustained effort to reduce scientific uncertainty on the impacts and correlations between emissions growth and temperature increase. We desperately need the debate to be framed by more certainty, and an urgent role for Governments is to support that scientific process.
	The fourth priority, which has been raised throughout the debate, is the urgent need to engage consumers and businesses, who will be agents of sustainable change. Arguably, that is the greatest political failure of the past 15 years. The key argument to win is that it is in the world interest to reduce the carbon intensity of our development. The chance of a stable climate with less pollution is not the only prize. Reduced dependence on the major producers of fossil fuels should mean greater energy security, which is a big issue for the United States and a growing issue for Britain. The law of supply and demand means that fossil fuels will become more expensive, and it is therefore in our economic interest to develop a cost-effective alternative.
	Last but by no means least, the development of low-carbon technology will create a new global market that can help to drive more sustainable economic growth. The way forward surely lies in focusing minds on that win-win analysis, because the politics then becomes easy. At the famous summit in New York, which the Prime Minister attended, President Clinton discussed a clean energy future:
	"If people really thought it was the next biggest way to create a new generation of jobs in every continent in the world, nobody would be fighting about the deadlines; they would be fighting to get there ahead of the next person."
	I believe that he was right.
	What is Britain's role? We have an opportunity to show the world that it is possible to reduce carbon emissions without sacrificing growth, but we must put our house in order because emissions have risen since 1997, and we are undermining the argument. When one engages with non-governmental organisations or submissions to Committees, it is clear that we could do so much more. Sonning common cries out for solar panels.

Boris Johnson: I cannot think of anything more serious or more practical that this House could do tonight to alleviate the problems of climate change than to get rid of the ludicrous burden of the £135 charge, in addition to the cost of architectural drawings, that falls upon people who want to install solar panels.

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I could not agree more. I hope that the Minister responds on behalf of Sonning Common.
	There is much more room for the Government to send clearer market signals to consumers, businesses and investors about policy direction in terms of what kind of energy mix we want and the desire to grow markets for cleaner cars and cleaner fuels. They should set a much better example in terms of the standards that we expect from manufacturers of cars, electrical appliances and new homes. The Environmental Audit Committee produced a report that showed the Government's deficiencies in setting standards for public procurement. They are spending £500 billion of our money—a serious amount.
	The Government should be doing more to develop market instruments that will get them out of the business of picking winners. In the European Union emissions trading scheme, which was very diluted and weakened in its first phase, lies the key opportunity to set a real price for carbon that will change the framework of this debate.
	All this is in our national interest and in the global interest. It is do-able with political will, and it would be helped by political consensus. I am therefore very disappointed by the Minister's reaction to our motion. The major breakthrough required is the inclusion of the United States of America and the giants, and the emergence of an American President who sees it as being in the interest of the United States to lead this debate, not follow it.

Alan Simpson: I join other Members who have expressed a preference for the House not to divide on these issues tonight. I feel that it would put us all in a strange position if we were asked to choose between voting for the anodyne or the out-to-lunch. It is difficult to choose between those who advocate some good things or other good things without specifying what they are. We have to move this debate, which is the most important of our lives, on to a whole series of practicalities about how we not only address the challenges of climate change, but learn to live differently and better as a result of meeting them.
	I will resist the temptation to go into the details of my new house, which I have turned from a derelict building into a place where we will be able to live and where we will ultimately generate 50 per cent. more energy than the house consumes. I am happy to talk later to the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) about how to do that. From my micro-experiences, I have learned a whole series of things about the macro issues that we have to address as a society.
	Every stage of this issue is riddled with contradictions. For me, not the least of those is that, as a socialist, I have to acknowledge that perhaps the Prince of Wales has a greater understanding of how to meet the challenges of climate change than does this Parliament. In the next decade, we will face four interconnected crises relating to climate change—crises of food security, water management, energy security and insurability. To emphasise the scale of the latter crisis, it has been calculated that this summer's girls' night out between the hurricanes of Wilma, Rita and Katrina has resulted in higher insurable damage than America has ever known. There has been £56.8 billion-worth of insurable damage as a result of this year's catastrophes in the US.
	The cost of that will be borne not only in the US but virtually everywhere. We will have our own experiences of that. When the flash floods hit Boscastle, Carlisle, the Vale of York, Oxford or the Medway towns, they are not going to make the same distinctions between rich and poor. They will sweep everything away and we will find ourselves in a society facing a different divide—that between the unemployable and the uninsurable. When that happens, the Government will be faced with very angry populations asking how we provide security in their lives. We do not have much time to change the way in which we think about meeting those challenges.
	We must move on from old to new agendas. In other parts of the world, especially in other parts of Europe, there is a different agenda for markets that will provide sustainable water use and sustainable agricultural systems. However, those markets are post-globalisation in their presumptions. Their frameworks of production and distribution are regionalised. They reduce product miles, urban congestion, the distance of accountability between the producer and the consumer, and they set up fresh lines of sustainable, local accountability as well as sustainable, localised production.
	The same will be true of energy. Some hon. Members have criticised the Government's chief scientist, Sir David King, for being a Government spin merchant, but it is much more appropriate to criticise him for trying to sell lousy science. I want to tackle that head on. Those who try to pretend that the only solution to a secure energy future is to go backwards with a new generation of nuclear power will be proved in the next five years to be conducting a Maginot line debate between sad old men trying to work out how to win the last war.
	An American environmental entrepreneur called Amory B. Lovins has tried to set out how we construct different markets around sustainability. He began by doing that in his Rocky Mountains institute, where he reduced the energy requirements to less than the cost of one 100W light bulb. It uses existing technologies to minimise waste and to generate and recycle heat that we are already using. He points out that if one takes the energy inputs from a power station, for every 100 inputs into the energy system, the end user has access to less than 10 per cent. One can stand in front of any power station in this country and see 60 per cent. of energy inputs going up in steam into the atmosphere. That is a colossal waste. We could run the country on the energy that we throw away. That is the biggest challenge but our mentality stands in the way of change.
	I found that in my house I could get into net metering. I can have a system that puts more energy back into the grid than I take out of it, but I get paid a pittance in the process. We can change that if we get out of a rigged energy market that tells the energy system, "You have a one price in and a one price out process."

Lynne Jones: I have concerns about my hon. Friend's suggestion that David King advocates bad science. Perhaps a more realistic proposition is that he has no confidence that the necessary investment will go into ensuring that our energy consumption is reduced by investment in energy conservation and the sort of measures that he advocates. Perhaps that is why he advocates nuclear power.

Alan Simpson: I understand that point but I will not budge from my initial contention, which is that nuclear power was never economic. We have not worked out who should pay the £56 billion to £80 billion of clean-up costs from the last generation of nuclear power before we work out who will pick up the costs of another generation of nuclear energy.

Lynne Jones: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that   the Government appear prepared to advocate investment in nuclear technology but not in energy conservation. David King probably finds himself having to deal with that.

Alan Simpson: I understand that point, but let me draw the House's attention to a completely different approach. If we step outside this country, we see that 50 per cent. of Denmark's energy is generated by local energy systems; in the Netherlands, 60 per cent. is generated by decentralised energy systems. When motorways are built in the Netherlands, the hot-road sub-surface of the motorway is harnessed to provide energy and heating for houses. Every kilometre of road that is built provides the energy and heating for 100 houses. In this country, we are not even beginning to look at local energy networks, although they are infinitely more efficient than our national energy system, which leaks like a sieve.
	We need to make that shift in thinking, to catch up with what is going on in other countries and to follow the lead being taken by some of our major cities. I have said before in the House that the Mayor of London has committed the capital city of this country, which currently consumes more energy than the whole of Portugal, to being energy self-sufficient within a decade. The international agreement that he is trying to broker with other major cities is that 20 of the world's biggest cities will all be energy self-sufficient using sustainable and renewable resources by 2020. That draws on the thinking of how to do things differently, which is already practised in other parts of the world.
	We need a shift in market rules, a shift to thinking about decentralised energy and a shift in the requirements that we have for our buildings. In Berlin today, 80 per cent. of new buildings are required to generate their own energy. We make no such requirements of own built environment. Some of the architects and property developers here should be in prison for the buildings they are throwing up. Those buildings are the gas guzzlers of the built environment, yet they pass for modern buildings. They are a massive source of carbon consumption and they are profligate in the way in which they are constructed.

Mark Pritchard: We have heard about the Government taking international leadership. Do they not also need to take domestic leadership? Is not the public sector, across the parties, the worst user of energy and the poorest performer from an energy efficiency point of view?

Alan Simpson: I would be happy for the Government to set targets for their own Departments, but Members should also set targets for their own lives. We are dead good at blaming other people for failing to take a lead, but do we take that lead ourselves? Do we heck as like! We are all on the line on this. We need to create new approaches to ethical and sustainable markets in relation to the way we live, treading lightly on the environment of the future. We need to create markets in conservation rather than consumption, markets that reward what we put back rather than what we take out. If we look at what is happening in the world outside this House, we can see a new consensus forming in civil society around the principles of sustainability. The problem is that the House is not part of that consensus.

Bill Wiggin: Many interesting comments have been made during this debate, which confirm that we have all come to see climate change as a real and dangerous threat. The debate started with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), and I take my hat off to him for his efforts to achieve consensus. I am not a particularly good consensus person, which is why a lot of my speeches are made in here. My right hon. Friend, however, could not have done more or gone further to encourage the consensus that he so rightly believes in. I pay tribute to the way in which he explained the purpose of this debate, and the fact that the Prime Minister's mixed messages mean that we need to find out from the Government where we are going to get to. I also pay tribute to the way in which he explained the difficulty involved in striking a balance between economic growth and reducing carbon emissions, and between adopting UK-centric or global policies. His efforts were humbling to me; even when he talked about Liberal Democrat campaigning techniques, he was exceptionally generous. He concluded with a particularly clear understanding of what consensus would enable, and the various layers and targets that it involved.
	I felt, however, that the Minister was less than charitable—uncharacteristically for him. He listed the Government's achievements, although he seemed to recognise the growing concern about climate change throughout the House following the numerous interventions. He made six points about Conservative policy. He said that he needed to know where we stood on wind energy, scrapping the climate change levy and fuel protestors. He also mentioned the Prime Minister's comments. He ended by saying that he had left the door open.
	At that point, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) explained consensus in what I considered to be a helpful and constructive manner, until he spoke of "forking off". I forgave him for that immediately, because I realised that he was trying to say that while we would not agree on every part of the way forward, we did agree that a way forward was essential.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) talked about photovoltaic roofs and planning permission. He made the immortal comment that "the Minister for whatever it is" should acknowledge the importance of the subject. I submit that there could be no finer advocate of solar panels on behalf of his constituent. My hon. Friend had a single, practical policy, he made his case vociferously and eloquently, and I am sure that his constituent will sing his praises from her rooftop in years to come.
	The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) delivered all the parts of my speech that I have now abandoned. He made an important and, perhaps, a rather harsh attack on the Government, citing the lack of speed and progress on this vital issue. His was an interesting and valuable speech. He said that we did not seem to be doing enough of the right things, which is obviously a worry for all of us.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) also spoke of real worries about progress on climate change. He said, perhaps a little unfairly, that Rio and Kyoto had failed, but went on to talk about   why policies were up for review and about thedisappointment felt by non-governmental organisations. I agreed with what he said about carbon emissions from China, India and Brazil. I also agreed when he said that the solution was technological. He put his case very eloquently, especially when describing Britain as a role model for the rest of the world, and suggesting that economic growth along with carbon reduction was the most important progress that we had achieved. He rightly pointed out that the duty of the House was constructing market frameworks rather than picking winners. He made an excellent speech.
	Last time we debated this subject, the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) described himself as a heretic. Like me, he sought no vote on the motion, which I considered helpful. He also spoke of the four apocalyptic crises that would befall us, affecting food security, water security, energy security and insurability. That tied in helpfully with an e-mail that I received today from the Association of British Insurers, which stated:
	"we need to stop putting people, jobs and property in harm's way. A quarter of Environment Agency objections to development consents on flood risk . . . are being ignored by planning authorities . . . the houses we build now need to withstand the weather of the 2050s and later . . . flood defence investment needs to defend existing property".
	The ABI believes that there will be a major crisis in insurability. So the heresy of the hon. Member for Nottingham, South has become apocalyptic. I always enjoy listening to his speeches. He also made a number of constructive suggestions to help us to catch up with the rest of the world.
	I think that the scientific evidence on climate change is conclusive. In the past 30 years alone, the average temperature in August has risen by 0.3° C in a decade. The subsequent warming of our planet has caused sea levels to rise by an average of 20 cm in the last century. As we have seen repeatedly and with great loss of life this summer, extreme weather events such as the hurricanes which have tormented the Gulf of Mexico are becoming far more frequent. Our ecosystems are being transformed at an unprecedented pace, and increases in ocean acidity and temperature threaten the world's diverse sea life.
	Governments across the world have recognised the problems associated with climate change, and over the past two decades concerted efforts have been made to take action. There have been high-profile discussions at Kyoto and Rio, in which many Conservative Members past and present have been involved. We in the UK, however, cannot afford to be complacent. We should not only do more to save our own environment, but take a lead on the international stage to show countries how changes can be made successfully without slowing economic growth.

Robert Key: Is my hon. Friend as convinced as I am that local authorities have a huge role to play? It is all very well looking at the international position, but local authorities and their planning decisions have, as in so much else, a huge role to play. Unfortunately, they are not yet playing it.

Bill Wiggin: I partly agree with my hon. Friend. He will know that when it comes to recycling, the top authorities are Conservative-run. Some authorities are doing their best, but my hon. Friend is right that we could all do more. He will have heard the contributions from Labour Members, particularly on what people can do as individuals. Responsibility starts at home and can be spread through local authorities all the way to the Government and then on internationally. I agree with my hon. Friend on that.
	Despite progress made on reducing emissions of nitrous oxide and sulphur hexafluoride, our primary objective must be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which are causing the most damage to our environment and may well lead us to miss our Kyoto targets. We obviously hope that that will not happen.

Helen Goodman: rose—

Bill Wiggin: If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will not give way, as I want to allow the Minister as much time as possible to answer the points raised in the debate.
	It is a shame and surprising to note that the average car emissions from new cars sold in the UK in 2004 were a worrying 31.4 g per kilometre above the EU target of 140 g per kilometre by 2008. Things are clearly not going the way we want. The failure to reach our own targets would serve as a damning indictment of our efforts to tackle climate change. It is essential that we reach and surpass those targets if we are to make a difference to our own environment and set an example to others across the world. How else can we expect other countries to heed our voice on the need to fight climate change? It should be our international duty to lead, not simply to follow.
	On this side of the House, we do not doubt the honourable intentions of the Government to act against climate change, but we question the Government's ability to make much difference. Back in 2000, the Prime Minister announced that
	"the greatest threat to our environment today is climate change."
	In 2004, the Prime Minister remarked:
	"Our effect on the environment, and in particular on climate change, is large and growing."
	However well intentioned those words, they mean nothing without action. Procrastination is the adversary of success. On climate change, it is the sworn enemy of our ability to safeguard the environment as the inheritance of future generations. My greatest concern is a doubt whether, despite all the words and promises, the Government's approach to finding real solutions will be felt in years in to come.
	We have spoken before about consensus. On this side of the House, it has already been acknowledged that climate change is an issue on which we must all fight together. We want to work across party lines so that effective and agreeable solutions can be found and implemented. That is why I hope that we will not divide tonight.

Jim Knight: The Minister for Climate Change and the Environment stated in his opening speech that climate change was the greatest environmental challenge that we face. There is no longer any significant doubt about the scientific basis for action, and I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) say the same. It has been recognised internationally, stimulating more action and discussion on the issue this year than ever before.
	Impacts are felt all around us, as I can see in my role as the UK Minister responsible for biodiversity. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Hurd) for mentioning that in passing. Biodiversity is an excellent indicator of the effects of climate change. By the end of the century, climate change and its impacts may be the biggest cause of biodiversity loss and the change in ecosystems service globally. Over the past 50 years, humans have affected ecosystems more rapidly and more extensively than in any comparable period of human history—largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fibre and fuel. That has resulted in a substantial loss to the diversity of life on earth.
	Species such as the polar bear, the mountain gorilla and the river dolphin are all under real threat due to climate change. The loss of these great animals would be a tragedy in its own right, but that loss of biodiversity would also expose the human population to greater threats of disease, and to threats to our livelihoods. I commend to the House a document analysing the effect of climate change on migratory species, published last month by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. It was much discussed at the conference of the parties to the convention on migratory species. Another such conference is taking place this weekend in Kenya.
	The Prime Minister has demonstrated—

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight: I will if I am given just a little more time; bear with me.
	The Prime Minister has demonstrated his commitment to tackling climate change by placing it at the top of the agenda for our G8 and EU presidencies this year. We are also committed to implementing our ambitious domestic programme. The current review of the UK climate change programme, which will be published at the turn of the year, will set out how we will achieve our targets for 2010, 2012 and 2050 across Government Departments. We have seen that the economic impact of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions need not be prohibitive, so long as Governments introduce sensible policies, combined with a wide range of low-carbon technologies.
	I want to reiterate our position, as set out by the Prime Minister and my DEFRA colleagues, for the benefit of my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), among others. We do not believe that the Kyoto protocol is dead, and we do believe that any future international agreement should include binding targets. The Prime Minister said in his article in Saturday's edition of The Independent that
	"we need an international framework and emissions targets which take us beyond Kyoto's 2012 commitments . . . I am showing the path we need to follow if we are going to agree internationally binding targets which all can sign up to . . . Too much of the debate over climate change has become polarised between those who advocate compulsory targets and those who advocate technology. For me this is a false choice. The technology is the means by which we will achieve those targets."
	His commitment is very clear.

Lynne Jones: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Jim Knight: I will take some interventions once I have made a little more progress.
	The UK wants a new global framework for action that goes beyond 2012, and which should include binding targets for developed countries. We do not believe that quantified binding targets should be a condition for the involvement of developing countries. We look forward to next week's conference in Montreal, which we hope will represent the next step in an important process. In the build-up to that conference, we can be proud that under this Government, we are leading Europe on achieving our Kyoto targets, and leading the world in achieving the international consensus that we need in order to take urgent action to manage and reverse climate change.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim Knight: I shall take interventions from the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) only.

Tobias Ellwood: I am very grateful to the Minister for giving way. I grew up not with the backdrop of the second world war or the cold war, but with the huge concern of global warming and climate change. I hope that everybody in this House can look in the mirror and ask themselves with confidence what they are doing individually on this issue. Does the Minister agree, however, that the public are looking at us and asking what we are doing internationally to contain global warming and climate change?

Jim Knight: As I sketched out—I hope that the hon. Gentleman was listening—we are taking a lead through our presidencies of the G8 and the EU. I have no time to take another intervention, but I challenge him on a future occasion to name any country in the world that is doing more on this agenda than we are.

Lynne Jones: I accept what my hon. Friend is saying, but why are the Government reducing expenditure on the replacement for the clear skies programme? Less money is being spent on encouraging individuals to upgrade their domestic energy supplies to incorporate renewables. My point is that there is a feeling that the Government are moving away from encouraging renewables, and putting all their eggs in the basket of nuclear power as a way of reducing CO 2 emissions.

Jim Knight: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we are investing in a new Department of Trade and Industry scheme to replace the clear skies programme. [Interruption.] It is a successor scheme, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment says from a sedentary position.
	This was a good debate and the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) made points similar to those made by the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). It makes me wonder why he has changed so rapidly from his position back in March, when he thought that the Tories were toxic when it came to climate change. He rejected their calls then for all-party consensus, but I accept that events have moved on and that the intentions behind the policy are honourable.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Colin Challen) chairs the all-party group and is very knowledgeable on these matters. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), he asked that there should be no Division this evening. I shall repeat that call for the Opposition to withdraw their motion, in the interests of cross-party consensus.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell also mentioned the "Stop Climate Chaos" campaign, which is a very useful initiative.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Jim Knight: I will not take any more interventions. The hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) made a memorable contribution. The whole nation is looking forward to his devoting all his time to politics and making similar practical policy proposals from the Opposition Front Bench. I suggest that he should also talk to his local planning authority—I do not know whether it is Conservative—about planning charges and the process through which people have to go to get planning permissions.

Boris Johnson: Will the Minister give way?

Jim Knight: I am sorry, but I am not taking any more interventions. My hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) intervened on the hon. Member for Henley to remind the House that it was Conservative Members who talked out the Management of Energy in Buildings Bill when it was debated here.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton was generous in his praise of the good record of the Government, especially in the days when he was in office. He was slightly less generous about their record since, and I cannot go through all the points that he made. However, I can say that the standards covering Government-financed buildings will be raised in April, when a new code of practice will be introduced. I hope that that will satisfy some of my right hon. Friend's concerns in that respect.
	The UK has made taking forward the inclusion of aviation in the EU emissions trading scheme a priority for our presidency of the EU. We therefore welcome the  publication of the European Commission's communication on the matter, which sets out a clear framework that we anticipate will be taken forward next year. In addition, I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton responded to an intervention by mentioning the transport fuel obligation, which will encourage the use of biofuels.
	The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood made an interesting and thoughtful contribution, which I enjoyed without necessarily agreeing with everything that he said. He spoke of the need to reduce scientific uncertainty, and I do agree about that. That is why, in anticipation of our EU presidency, we organised in February a conference at the Hadley centre in Bracknell. The aim was to bring the science together, and we need to continue that good work.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South made another thoughtful contribution, in which he admitted to being a fan of the Prince of Wales' approach to climate change. That was good news for me, and I was interested to hear it. He also talked about nuclear power, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton had earlier. That difficult and controversial matter will be addressed in this Parliament, but no decisions have been made as yet,
	I fear that the idea of an all-party consensus is no more than a fig leaf from the Opposition. On the face of it, the motion is tempting: there is all-party consensus that climate change is a serious global problem that we should all work together to solve. However, I fear that, beneath the all-party consensus that the right hon. Member for West Dorset proposes, the Opposition have nothing left in terms of policy.
	Where is the Opposition policy around which consensus could be built? The Conservatives opposed the climate change levy, and they oppose wind-power projects at every turn. Every time there is a fuel protest, they make noises to oppose the level of fuel duty. That is why the hon. Member for Lewes called them the toxic Tories back in March.
	I therefore urge the Opposition to withdraw the motion and to come back when Tory Front Bench Members are able to present a credible position across all shadow Departments. Failing that, the House should vote down the motion and in that way show its support for the Government's global leadership on this matter, for our action nationally, and for our desire to do better.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 233, Noes 296.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House welcomes the leadership shown by the UK Government internationally on climate change, and the important progress made at the July Summit and at the recent meeting of the Dialogue on Climate Energy, Clean Energy and Sustainable Development; further welcomes the recent announcement of the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation and looks forward to the publication of the climate change programme review; recognises the importance of building greater understanding and support among all sectors of society for action on climate change; and further welcomes new ideas and contributions from all quarters that help to reduce carbon emissions.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions 3 and 4.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Pensions

That the draft Financial Assistance Scheme (Appeals) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 26th October, be approved.
	That the draft Financial Assistance Scheme (Modifications and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 26th October, be approved.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Declaration on EU Development Policy

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11413/05, Commission Communication: 'Draft Joint Declaration by the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission on the European Union Development Policy'; and supports the Government's view that poverty eradication must remain the overarching objective and that the document clarifies the role and added value of the European Community.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]
	Question agreed to.

TRAVELLERS (MIDDLEWICH)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Alan Campbell.]

Ann Winterton: The issue of Gypsies and Travellers and their need for accommodation is highly topical, and I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to raise the matter on the Floor of the House and to seek some much-needed clarification from the Government. There are two matters that concern Congleton borough council: first, demand for additional caravan sites for Gypsies in terms of their location and size; and, secondly, the stationing of caravans belonging to Gypsies and Travellers within the curtilages of the residential properties that they have purchased. At the moment, the second issue appears to be located only in one part of the borough—Middlewich.
	Middlewich has approximately 30 houses owned by Gypsy families with multiple caravans compacted in their garden areas. The adopted Congleton borough local plan contains policies that relate to Gypsy caravan sites, and there are a number of criteria against which planning applications will be judged. A number of permissions have been granted for small sites, but recently there have been incidences of illegal encampments, notably at Cranage. The latter would provide enough material for another debate, but I want to focus this evening on the second issue that appears to be peculiar to Middlewich, which historically has had a number of Gypsies among its population.
	An increasing number of Middlewich residents have raised concerns about various domestic operations and activities undertaken by Gypsy families more recently settled in the town. Specifically, residents query whether those families are in breach of planning legislation by hard surfacing the whole or a major part of their gardens; by installing elaborate decorative railings; by keeping and using one or more caravans in their gardens; and by installing shower and lavatory blocks and electricity points in the gardens to facilitate living in the caravans.
	For the past two years, the CW10 residents action group has been trying to establish why our local authority allows mini-caravan sites in the cartilage of dwelling houses without the need for planning permission, licence conditions such as those for health and safety, or enforcement, which are the normal requirement for any land where the intensification of use has occurred—that is, where a material change of use has taken place.
	The council has considered the issues and two barristers, each specialising in Gypsy-related planning law, have been consulted. Their advice is that caravans do not need planning permission if they are ancillary or incidental to the use of a dwelling house. What is incidental varies according to the particular facts of each case, and to ascertain those facts, the proper approach is to investigate and judge each case on its merits, taking into account, first, the degree to which each caravan is functionally connected with and subordinate to the use of the dwelling house. For example, to what extent do those who sleep in the caravans use facilities in the house? Do the caravans provide independent living accommodation or are their occupants dependent on facilities in the house, too?
	Secondly, the relative scale of accommodation available in both the dwelling house and the caravan must be taken into account. For example, caravans providing sleeping accommodation for a small overflow of family members may well have a subordinate, functional link to the main house, but may not where the caravans provide more accommodation than the house itself. Thirdly, account must be taken of the relative size of the dwelling house, its garden and the caravan. The larger the first two and the smaller the latter, the more likely it is that a subordinate, functional link exists. Fourthly, the relationship between the occupants must be taken into account. Extended family groups are more likely to share functional links.
	To help to decide whether caravans are incidental or require planning permission, enforcement officers would need to ask each family questions along the following lines. Who lives in the house? Who lives in the caravan? What is the relationship between those people? What size of rooms and what kind of facilities exist in the house and caravan, and who uses what? How are utilities such as electricity, gas, water and waste shared? Are any payments shared? Is rent paid? What are the family's intentions for the proposed use of the caravans, including time scales?
	The borough council considers that hard surfacing of part or all of the garden will generally be permitted development and that the erection of decorative railings will follow normal permitted development rules that apply to all means of enclosure. Likewise, the construction of shower and lavatory blocks might require planning permission, or might be permitted development, depending on the usual spatial allowances that apply to all residential properties.
	Congleton borough council's stance has been that multiple caravans sited in the gardens of houses are permitted development because they are incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house and occupied by extended family members.

Peter Bone: The situation that my hon. Friend is describing reflects exactly what is happening in part of my constituency in Rushden. Several caravans form part of something that is, in my view, a permanent structure, and local residents are incensed that planning action is not being taken.

Ann Winterton: My hon. Friend describes the reason for the debate, and I am sure that the Minister has heard his comments.
	A planning application or site licence are not required for such caravans, and the number of caravans allowed in a single curtilage cannot be limited. However, the CW10 residents action group has found that siting multiple caravans in the gardens of houses is a material change of use and not permitted development. Putting a dwelling in the curtilage of another dwelling is always a material change of use and, in turn, cannot be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house, so surely planning permission is required. Furthermore, the same group believes that an extended family member includes three generations of the same family—grandparents, parents and their children—but not other independent family units, such as aunts, uncles, cousins and so on.
	My constituents and I would be grateful to receive clarification from the Minister on a considerable number of questions, not least whether caravans are assessed for council tax purposes as additional facilities. On enforcement, paragraph 29 of circular 01/94—Gypsy sites and planning—states:
	"Some kinds of activity will not fall within the definition of 'development' in section 55 of the 1990 Act, and will not therefore require planning permission. Any gypsy living in a dwellinghouse will not require planning permission to use a caravan within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, provided that the purpose is incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such. A caravan within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse may have a number of ancillary uses for which planning permission would not be required. For example, it could be used for additional living accommodation, provided that it remained part of the same planning unit as the dwellinghouse and the unit remained in single family occupation."
	Is the above definition for a single caravan, or an unlimited number of caravans, being permitted to be stationed in the garden of a house without the need for planning permission? When would that definition no longer apply so that planning permission would have to be sought by the occupants of the dwelling house? To what extent would the usage of caravans in the gardens of a property fall under the definition of being incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house? When would the usage of the caravans fall outside that definition? Furthermore, would the intensification of caravans in the garden of a house be classified as incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house?
	Paragraph 29 of circular 01/94 says:
	"A caravan within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse may have a number of ancillary uses for which planning permission would not be required."
	Under the above definition, what would the usage of the caravan be if classified as ancillary use? What would its usage be when it falls outside that definition? Are there any time limitations for caravans to be stationed in the gardens of a house under the definition of incidental to the enjoyment of a dwelling house? What about the impact on neighbouring properties?
	If the primary use of the dwelling house remains residential and within one planning unit, would it be possible for more than one caravan to be sited without the need for planning permission? Furthermore, would caravans stationed in the garden of an unoccupied house be incidental to the enjoyment of that dwelling house? If so, are there any time limitations without the need of planning consent? When would such cases require planning consent?
	Under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995—the GDPO—when would the stationing of caravans in the curtilage of a dwelling house fall within the definition of permitted development? Would the number of caravans and extent of use have any bearing on that definition? Also, under the same GDPO, when would the stationing of caravans in the garden of a house fall within the definition of material change of use, and would the number of caravans and extent of use have any bearing on that definition?
	When would provisions on the health and safety of the occupants of the caravans, the dwelling house and their neighbours come into effect if multiple caravans, cars and vans are compacted into the curtilage of a single dwelling house? Who would be ultimately responsible for ensuring that those checks are carried out?
	When would the following extract from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's "Planning Guide for Householders" apply to the stationing of caravans in a single residential curtilage? The following are examples of when one would need to apply for planning permission:
	"If you want to divide off part of your house for use as a separate home (for example, a self-contained flat or bed-sit) or use a building or caravan in your garden as a separate residence for someone else";
	or
	"If you want to make additions or extensions to a flat or maisonette (including those converted from houses)."
	When would the following extract taken directly from a letter to the CW10 residents action group from a planning policy adviser at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister apply in connection to multiple caravans stationed in the garden of a house? I quote:
	"Each local planning authority has to take a view on whether any particular activity amounts to 'development' within the meaning of section 55 of the main Act. There are two types of development—'operational', such as building or engineering work, and 'material change of use of land'. A boat or vehicle would be a chattel rather than a building or a structure, so could only be considered as development if it represented a material change of use of land (eg, if someone set up a commercial boat-repair business in what was supposed to be his back garden).
	Similarly, a caravan, as defined under section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, as modified by section 13(1)(b) of the Caravan Sites Act 1968 is not a building. However, if someone started using one as a self-contained dwelling within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse the local planning authority would require a planning application for change of use of land. Putting one dwelling into the curtilage of another is always a material change of use".
	Will the Minister please specify a rule of thumb when determining who will fall under the definition of extended family used in planning guidelines? Moreover, when would that definition no longer apply in respect of a family member? Finally, when would permanent occupation of caravans require planning consent within a single residential curtilage, and when would permanent occupation not require planning consent?
	Given the complexity of planning law and that to judge the facts and degree of each case would involve significant intrusion into the lives of the families concerned, it might be appropriate for the Government to be invited to consider changes to planning legislation to clarify the issues. One suggestion from Congleton borough council is that a limit be imposed on the number of caravans permitted to be kept within the residential curtilage of a property to no more than one, whether occupied temporarily, permanently or not at all. Above that limit, planning permission would be required, and it would be clear to all where the distinction lay. It would then be a matter for the local planning authority, when required to determine an application for more than one caravan, to balance the merits of each case in the light of the development plan and any other material considerations.
	I would appreciate the Minister's clarification of those important issues, which are of understandable concern to the residents of Middlewich. There seems to be one rule for one group of people, but my constituents want equity among all local residents, and they want planning regulations to be unequivocal in application. I have gone into considerable detail about the matter, and I am happy for the Minister to write to me if he cannot respond to all the points that I have made in this short debate.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) on securing this debate and I hope to provide the clarification that she seeks. However, she posed some detailed questions about the legislation, which I accept were entirely appropriate, and I therefore undertake to write to her to ensure that in due course we cover all the points that she made.
	We recognise the difficult problems that can arise when trying to find suitable accommodation for Gypsies and Travellers, and the hon. Lady will acknowledge that we take these issues seriously. We have been working hard and we will continue to work hard to find solutions to try to alleviate the distress to everyone concerned. The hon. Lady asked a number of detailed questions about the location of caravans in back gardens, and I shall attempt to answer them as fully as possible. However, as I said, I shall write to her in due course, because I do not think that I will cover every point that she made.
	The hon. Lady asked to what extent the usage of a caravan would fall outside the definition of being
	"incidental to enjoyment of the dwelling house".
	A caravan is not a building. Stationing one on land is not itself "operational development" that requires planning permission, although associated works such as the provision of infrastructure and hygiene facilities may well be. Under planning law, householders can park caravans in their gardens or driveways indefinitely, provided that no material change of use of land occurs. However, in certain circumstances, the placing of a caravan on land may change the principal use of that land, which would amount to development in the form of a material change of use of land. It is for that reason that the use of land for an occupied caravan generally requires planning permission.
	The hon. Lady asked whether adding extra caravans would still be incidental. A householder is entitled to use caravans as extra accommodation without planning permission, provided that the occupants continue to use the house, for example, the kitchen or bathroom. If, on the other hand, a caravan is there for another purpose not incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling, known as the dwelling house—for example, it is inhabited quite separately from, and independently of, the dwelling house—planning permission for change of use of the land would, generally speaking, be required. As it would result in the creation of a new planning unit, such permission may well not be granted in a residential area. If a caravan was being used in connection with a commercial purpose, the local planning authority may decide that an unauthorised change of use of land had occurred, for which planning permission should be sought.
	The hon. Lady also asked whether there were any time limits relating to the stationing of caravans, and whether it is possible for more than one caravan to be sited without the need for planning permission. As I stated previously, caravans can be stationed indefinitely in someone's garden or driveway, provided that no material change to the use of land occurs. There is no legally defined limit on the number of caravans that can be stationed in gardens before planning permission is required. However, if so many caravans were stationed in the garden of a house that they ceased to be incidental to the principal use of that land, the local planning authority could require a planning application, or take enforcement action against the unauthorised change of land use.

Alan Meale: Can my hon. Friend deal with a point relating to the advice that the hon. Member for Congleton (Ann Winterton) mentioned in connection with extended families and their use of caravans? As we know, many Gypsies and Travellers have a wide family base and their extended family is much wider than the norm. I hope that my hon. Friend will clarify the situation and give us the Government's view of what is and is not legal in planning terms.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I shall respond to my hon. Friend's intervention when I deal with extended families later. I hope to provide some clarification of the points raised by the hon. Member for Congleton and by my hon. Friend.
	The hon. Lady invited the Government to set a limit on the number of caravans permitted to be kept within the curtilage of a property, and urged that no more than one caravan should be permitted, whether occupied temporarily, permanently or not at all. The Government's view is that the limit of one caravan would be a disproportionate burden on local authorities, which would have to deal with large numbers of planning applications, and a disproportionate burden on all those who enjoy using caravans, whether from the Gypsy and Traveller or settled communities. The current law allows flexibility for local authorities to determine the merits of any case as to whether the stationing of a caravan or caravans constitutes development requiring planning permission.

Peter Bone: Has any research been done on how many houses have more than one caravan?

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I will refer later to the review being undertaken. Given the strength of feeling and the problems caused by multiple parking, officials in the Department will want to consider the question as part of the review.

Ann Winterton: The issue is not just multiple parking; it is multiple living.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady made that very clear in her contribution. I apologise for not acknowledging that.
	The hon. Lady asked whether a caravan would need planning permission if it were stationed in the curtilage of an unoccupied dwelling house. The answer would depend on the circumstances in each particular case. For example, it would not be reasonable to require planning permission if the house was unoccupied while the owners were away on holiday and had left a caravan in the back garden. However, if a caravan was being used as the sole residence of a family and was stationed in the garden of an unoccupied house that was not used at all by the family, the local authority might consider this to be a material change of use of land, as the caravan was not ancillary to the enjoyment of the main dwelling house.
	The hon. Lady asks what uses might be considered ancillary. Examples could include uses such as storage, home office, additional sleeping accommodation and garden shed. In respect of the question that she asked about council tax, it is for the valuation office or the local authority to determine whether there has been a change in the value of the house resulting from additional development, which would alter its council tax banding.
	The hon. Lady quotes from the "Planning Guide for Householders", an explanatory guide that gives examples showing when planning permission is needed. In answer to her question, and as that booklet states:
	"Planning permission is needed to place a caravan in your garden as a separate residence for someone else".
	A separate residence is clearly not ancillary to the use of the main dwelling house.
	In relation to the responsibility for health and safety issues for caravans in gardens, in the first instance it would be for the environmental health officer of the local authority to assess whether there were any health and safety issues caused by use of caravans within a tight space surrounding a dwelling house. The environmental health officer is under a duty to contact other relevant agencies, including the local fire authority, if he or she believes that they need to be aware of the concentration of caravans. Local residents who are concerned should therefore contact their environmental health officer in the first instance. Finally, the term "extended family" is not a legal one, and it must be given its ordinary, everyday meaning. The question whether a person is covered by the term is a question of fact that needs to be determined by looking at the particular circumstances of the case.
	Siting caravans in back gardens seems to be one solution Gypsies and Travellers have identified in response to the lack of authorised sites. Some 25 per cent. of all Gypsy and Traveller caravans in England are on unauthorised sites. I understand that Congleton district council is actively investigating whether there has been any breach of planning control with a view to possible enforcement action. The Government take the view that local planning authorities should take appropriate enforcement action if they consider that an unacceptable breach of planning control has occurred, and they have a range of tools at their disposal.
	The hon. Lady has concentrated on planning matters in relation to Gypsies and Travellers. However, she has raised the issue of instances of unauthorised encampments in her constituency in the past, and I thought it might be useful if I set out the Government's wider policy towards unauthorised encampments by Gypsies and Travellers. Our aim is to reduce the tensions between Gypsies and Travellers and the settled community, and in some cases unauthorised camping can be dealt with through negotiation. However, in other cases firm and prompt action is necessary: firm action to enforce against encampments in inappropriate places; firm action to provide the right sort of authorised sites, in appropriate locations; and where people are unwilling to respect the rights of others, firm action to enforce against antisocial behaviour and environmental damage. Where persistent and repeated offences occur, action must be relentless in upholding the law.
	There are a range of powers for use by private landowners, the police and local authorities to deal with unauthorised encampments and associated problems such as antisocial behaviour. I have every sympathy with those encountering problems over enforcement action, where there has been vandalism and criminal damage. The powers are there—it is a question of using them effectively.
	Unauthorised sites can cause many serious problems and distress for local communities. The key to a reduction in both unauthorised camping and the siting of caravans in locations inappropriate for planning reasons is to increase the supply of authorised sites. The Government are committed to the firm but fair use of enforcement powers against unauthorised sites and antisocial behaviour linked with increasing site provision.

Ann Winterton: It might be worth mentioning that on the illegal encampment at Cranage, I inquired about the costs of some of the statutory duties. For example, the situation cost the police in Cheshire—this figure includes the pension contribution, which one must include—£5,800. That does not include the cost of cleaning up the site, the environmental health officer and all the rest, which is a huge expense on the back of local council tax payers.

Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Lady has made some valid points. Options are available to local authorities to claim compensation from those who cause damage. The penalties are quite stiff, and it is a matter of using those enforcement powers to make sure that those who cause the damage and distress ultimately pay for those actions that cause such difficulty for many in the settled community.
	Many local authorities have not responded sufficiently on providing sites to meet local needs in their areas in recent years. To be fair, however, some local authorities have done a great deal. Under the Housing Act 2004, local authorities will be required to carry out accommodation needs assessments for Gypsies and Travellers, as they do for the settled community, and also to draw up a Gypsy and Traveller accommodation strategy to ensure that need is met. We will issue guidance on how to carry out accommodation needs assessments in due course, but in the meantime we will seek to facilitate the sharing of good practice between local authorities and other players, and we will do all that we can to help local authorities find a way to share provision.
	Local authorities should identify land that could be used for the provision of new public and private sites, which is why it is important to place an obligation on local authorities to identify land as part of their planning process. Under the new draft Gypsy and Traveller planning circular, there is a requirement on local planning authorities to allocate sufficient land for sites, which is effectively a "duty". As part of the new planning process, local authorities will have to identify sites suitable for Gypsies and Travellers as part of their local development framework. The regional planning body will have to assess regional need for Gypsy and Traveller sites based upon local accommodation needs assessments made by local authorities—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.